AFTER months of embarrassed silence over links with US Democrats, Downing Street finally admitted yesterday that Tony Blair had twice met John Kerry, who is challenging the Prime Minister’s war ally President Bush for the Oval Office.

The disclosure suggests that Mr Blair may be hedging his bets on the outcome of the US elections.

Previously the Government has raised no objection to claims, repeated on both sides of the Atlantic, that Mr Blair had “never met” the Democratic presidential candidate.

Attempts to arrange formal talks during the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington at Easter foundered on “scheduling difficulties”.

This was widely regarded as convenient for both Mr Blair, who did not wish to damage his alliance with Mr Bush, and the Kerry campaign, that was anxious to highlight domestic issues ahead of foreign policy. But on Monday, the Prime Minister told a press conference: “It’s not correct actually that I haven’t met him (Kerry). But I think it’s best that I stay out of that, particularly at the moment.”

Aides said yesterday that Mr Blair had spoken to Mr Kerry at Ronald Reagan’s funeral on June 11.

“It was not a long conversation but it was more than an exchange of pleasantries,” an official said. A spokesman later added that the two men had talked at greater length on a previous occasion when Mr Blair was visiting the US Congress.

Sources close to Mr Blair still believe that Mr Bush will win a second term next week, not least because of their admiration for the ruthlessness of the Republican election machine.

But a succession of opinion polls showing the presidential race is desperately tight has caused a slight — but nonetheless significant — shift in attitude towards Mr Kerry as Downing Street increasingly emphasises its desire to work with whoever occupies the White House.

One aide said: “If Kerry wants to rebuild America’s international alliances, his first call will be to Tony Blair who has spent the last two years trying to keep the multilateral route open. Our experience shows that he won’t find it easy, but he certainly won’t be able to do it without us.”

Another factor has been the deep hostility of the Labour Party and a large section of British voters towards the Republican Adminstration.

No 10 has been dismayed by recent speculation that it is backing a Bush victory as some kind of vindication for Mr Blair’s own role in the Iraq war.

At the same time a number of ministers have been uneasy about the way that the Prime Minister’s support has been used by Mr Bush during election debates to rebut the Democrats’ claim that America is isolated within the international community.

Mr Blair’s sensitivity on this issue explains why he has ducked out of a formal presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honour awarded to him for what Mr Bush called his “steadfast stand against evil” in the War against Terror.

More than 15 months have now elapsed since Mr Blair addressed the US Congress to mark this rare honour for a foreign politician.

In the ensuing period, Downing Street has tried to explain away the delay by saying the medal is still being designed or that the minting process takes a long time.

But yesterday a spokesman was even more circumspect, saying: “There are no plans for a presentation at this time.”

Asked if Mr Blair would travel to Washington to pick up his medal before the general election in Britain, he said: “Let’s wait and see what happens.”

Times Recommends

• Henning Mankell: ‘If Wallander was alive, I wouldn’t be a friend of his’
• Secret society's skull and crossbones for sale
• Nigerian leader vanishes after medical treatment