Let's assume Sir Keir Starmer wishes to win the next election. Let's also assume he has no desire to be replaced as Prime Minister in the next year approximately by Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner or anyone else.

He's a political leader, after all, and politicians enjoy power - Starmer more than a lot of, I would believe. I also suggest that he's at least averagely smart, and ought to be able to weigh up the possibilities of any policy being successful.

After the struggles, compromises and embarrassments associated with attaining high workplace, Starmer has no objective of tossing it all away. Why, then, does he reveal every sign of doing so?

On the single issue that might matter most to a bulk of citizens, he is hurtling towards certain catastrophe, while rejecting himself any prospect of an escape path. I mean the boats encountering the Channel.

Numbers of migrants doing the 21-mile journey are up by 42 percent on the exact same duration in 2015. An analysis by The Times, using similar modelling as Border Force, anticipates that 50,000 people will cross the Channel in small 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 descriptions for his behaviour. One is that he is deluding himself. He actually believes numbers will boil down once the procedures he has actually taken start to work.

If Starmer still thinks that his policies - throwing numerous millions at the French authorities, improving intelligence and utilizing improved police powers - will lower the numbers, that truly is the accomplishment of hope over experience. The other possibility is that he is currently starting poorly to realise that his stratagems will not bear much, if any, fruit. So he and the Government have actually chosen to pull the wool over our eyes. A fatal technique.

There have actually been two such examples in current days. Having stated in an online post on Monday that he felt 'mad' 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 out home in the 12 months to March, 3 percent less than in the previous year

He boasted that 'almost 30,000 individuals' had been gotten rid of from the UK by this Government. Sounds good. But in fact this figure refers to all kinds of migrants who have no right to be in our country. Only 2,240 small-boat migrants were sent home in the 12 months to March, 3 percent 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 informing deliberate fibs. Shall we go for a statistical sleight of hand?

The other circumstances of the Government not being entirely directly was the Office's claim previously this week that there have actually been more migrants this year because of balmy weather. These are called 'red days', when the sea is calm.

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

The most possible explanation is that last May and June the Government's plan to send out prohibited migrants to Rwanda had lastly cleared consistent judicial obstruction. Some, a minimum of, were discouraged from crossing the Channel for fear of being loaded off to the main African nation.

The Rwanda plan was far from ideal - it was pricey, and responsible to legal difficulty due to the fact that the nation has an authoritarian federal government - but at least it had some prospect of preventing migrants. The inbound Labour Government discarded its only plausible means of curbing the boats.

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

Starmer now has nothing formidable in his locker. Literally absolutely nothing. He can offer additional millions to the French federal government however it will not make much, if any, difference. French cops will still loll around on beaches, thinking of the sand castles they made as children, as they see migrant boats setting off for Dover.

The fact is that the French will never ever strain themselves due to the fact that every migrant who leaves their shores is one less migrant for them to stress over. It is ignorant to imagine that they are ever going to be zealous on our behalf.

STEPHEN GLOVER: Keir Starmer is a soft guy who can not comprehend the true evil Britain is dealing with

Nor will Sir Keir's concept of improving intelligence and law enforcement be decisive. When it comes to Labour's reported intention to tinker with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act so as to prevent fake 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 starting to stress as they understand they do not have a single policy most likely to fulfil their promise of 'smashing the gangs'? If they aren't desperate, they jolly well should be.

Three weeks ago, Sir Keir was humiliated after he had actually applauded talks over Rwanda-style 'return centers' only minutes before his Albanian counterpart, standing a few feet away, dismissed any cooperation.

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

I've no particular wish to toss 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 determination and nerve for him to take it.

There are lots of uninhabited British islands off our coast and further afield. Pick one of them. Create a camp comparable to those on the Isle of Man that housed alien internees throughout the War. Build numerous huts - rather than erecting less strong camping tents, as ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe has actually proposed.

Recruit doctors and authorities to evaluate claims faster than happens at present - and then return most migrants to where they came from. The expense of setting up such a camp would be a portion of the ₤ 4.3 billion spent in 2015 on housing migrants and asylum candidates.

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

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

But he doesn't have a better idea. In reality, he hasn't got any concepts at all that are accountable to stem the growing numbers of people streaming across the English Channel.

Things can just get even 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