Let's presume Sir Keir Starmer wishes to win the next election. Let's also presume he has no desire to be changed as Prime Minister in the next year or two by Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner or anybody else.

He's a political leader, after all, and politicians enjoy power - Starmer more than most, I would believe. I likewise recommend that he's at least averagely smart, and must have the ability to weigh up the possibilities of any policy succeeding.

After the struggles, compromises and humiliations included in attaining high workplace, Starmer has no intent of tossing it all away. Why, then, does he reveal every sign of doing so?

On the single problem that may matter most to a bulk of voters, he is speeding towards particular disaster, while rejecting himself any prospect of an escape route. I imply the boats stumbling upon the Channel.

Numbers of migrants doing the 21-mile journey are up by 42 per cent on the exact same period in 2015. An analysis by The Times, using comparable modelling as Border Force, anticipates that 50,000 people will cross the Channel in little boats in 2025. That would be an annual record - and a stonking ordeal for Sir Keir.

Peering into his mind, I reckon there are 2 main possible explanations for his behaviour. One is that he is misguiding himself. He truly thinks numbers will boil down as soon as the steps he has actually taken start to work.

If Starmer still thinks that his policies - tossing numerous millions at the French authorities, enhancing intelligence and using boosted law enforcement powers - will minimize the numbers, that truly is the triumph of hope over experience. The other possibility is that he is already beginning poorly to realise that his stratagems won't bear much, if any, fruit. So he and the Government have actually decided to pull the wool over our eyes. A fatal approach.

There have actually been 2 such examples in current days. Having stated in an online post on Monday that he felt 'angry' about the numbers crossing the Channel (how does he think the rest of us feel !?) the PM made a slippery claim.

Sir Keir Starmer now has nothing formidable in his locker, Stephen Glover writes

Only 2,240 small-boat migrants were sent home in the 12 months to March, 3 per cent fewer than in the previous year

He boasted that 'practically 30,000 individuals' had been gotten rid of from the UK by this Government. Sounds great. But in reality this figure refers to all types of migrants who have no right to be in our nation. Only 2,240 small-boat migrants were sent out home in the 12 months to March, 3 per cent fewer than in the previous year.

A lie? Good God no! We should not accuse Labour prime ministers, far less Sir Keir Starmer KCB, PC, KC, MP, of telling purposeful fibs. Shall we opt for an analytical deception?

The other instance of the Government not being totally straight was the Home Office's claim earlier this week that there have actually been more migrants this year because of balmy weather condition. These are called 'red days', when the sea is calm.

But an analysis by my colleague David Barrett in the other day's Mail reveals that in temperate May in 2015 there were 21 'red days' but just 2,765 arrivals, about 1,000 fewer than last month. In mild June 2024 there were 20 'red days', though just 3,007 migrants were tape-recorded crossing the Channel.

The most probable description is that last May and June the Government's strategy to send unlawful migrants to Rwanda had actually lastly cleared persistent judicial obstruction. Some, at least, were deterred from crossing the Channel for worry of being packed off to the central African nation.

The Rwanda plan was far from best - it was pricey, and responsible to legal difficulty since the nation has an authoritarian federal government - but at least it had some possibility of preventing migrants. The inbound Labour Government got rid of its only possible ways of curbing the boats.

Great for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who in a speech tomorrow will carry out to resurrect a plan noticeably similar to the Rwandan one.

Starmer now has absolutely nothing formidable in his locker. Literally absolutely nothing. He can give additional millions to the French federal government but it won't make much, if any, . French cops will still loll around on beaches, thinking of the sand castles they made as kids, as they view migrant boats setting off for Dover.

The fact is that the French will never strain themselves due to the fact that every migrant who leaves their coasts is one less migrant for them to fret about. It is naive to envision that they are ever going to be zealous on our behalf.

STEPHEN GLOVER: Keir Starmer is a soft male who can not understand the real wicked Britain is facing

Nor will Sir Keir's idea of enhancing intelligence and police be definitive. As for Labour's reported objective to play with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act so as to prevent bogus asylum claims, that is welcome, but even if it becomes law it is not likely to have much impact on overall numbers.

Are the PM and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper beginning to stress as they realise they do not have a single policy likely to fulfil their guarantee of 'smashing the gangs'? If they aren't desperate, they jolly well need to be.

Three weeks back, Sir Keir was humiliated after he had praised talks over Rwanda-style 'return centers' only minutes before his Albanian counterpart, standing a couple of feet away, eliminated any cooperation.

Maybe the Government will encourage the Kosovans or the North Macedonians to establish some sort of scheme. But if it does, it will take months, if not years, and people will wonder why Sir Keir cancelled a plan that he is at least partly trying to restore.

I've no specific wish to throw Starmer a lifeline but, as I have actually recommended before, there's one possible course out of the hole he has dug for himself - though it would take massive decision and nerve for him to take it.

There are numerous unoccupied British islands off our coast and more afield. Pick among them. Create a camp similar to those on the Isle of Man that housed alien internees throughout the War. Build hundreds of huts - instead of setting up less strong camping tents, as ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe has proposed.

Recruit medical professionals and authorities to examine claims quicker than occurs at present - and then return most migrants to where they came from. The expense of establishing such a camp would be a portion of the ₤ 4.3 billion invested last year on housing migrants and asylum applicants.

Can anybody tell me why not? Few migrants would elegant kicking their heels for months in a camp, however humane, so it would be a wonderful deterrent. Cross the Channel, and you will be our guest - on a possibly windy island instead of in a four-star hotel.

Granted, in order to stave off vexatious legal difficulties we 'd most likely have to derogate from the European Court of Human Rights, which would be an action too far for our careful Prime Minister.

But he does not have a better idea. In reality, he hasn't got any ideas at all that are liable to stem the growing varieties of individuals streaming across the English Channel.

Things can only become worse - and as they do Labour will sink ever lower in public esteem. Does Sir Keir Starmer actually wish to be the signatory of his own political death warrant?

RwandaAngela RaynerLabourWes Streeting
rentcafe.com