OK, the US election is over, and none of the predictions about massive legal challenges, chaos and voter fraud actually happened. Incidentally, do you know anyone who was anywhere near close to predicting what the final result was? I don't - all the predictions that I heard were for anything from a very close race to a Kerry landslide.

But now we are embarking on what is my favourite part of an election, especially one held in the US - the aftermath: the inquests, excuses, blame placing, and everyone on the losing side who is able to, trying to avoid responsibility, and to position themselves for next time.

Kerry, of course, is history, especially having lost what seemed to be a clearly winnable election, so, like rats leaving a sinking ship, all his team will carefully disengage themselves over the next few weeks, saying when the subject is raised, that "It was not my fault."

Of course on the winning side, especially with a second-term president, people are also trying to position themselves for next time, but they have to be even more discreet about it, or they will be seen to be disloyal, which will be a major strike against them in 2008.

And so the merry-go-round goes on. Who will be the candidates in 2008? I have no idea, the only thing that I do know is that 90% of the names confidently predicted will disappear from the scene long before the time. Even this time last year, who would have thought that Kerry would be a candidate? Very few people, if any.

The sad thing though is not that what is going to happen is so predictable, but that it makes so very little difference to anything.

Kerry was just another version of Bush, when all is said and done. Only one president in my lifetime has ever accomplished anything of major significance, despite being personally flawed himself, and I doubt that Bush will surprise me in the next four years.

Arthur C. Clarke, why did no-one listen to you?

Michael Scarth