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

He's a political leader, after all, and politicians delight in power - Starmer more than most, I would believe. I also suggest that he's at least averagely intelligent, and need to be able to weigh up the opportunities of any policy succeeding.

After the struggles, compromises and humiliations involved in achieving high office, Starmer has no intent of throwing everything away. Why, then, does he reveal every indication of doing so?

On the single concern that might matter most to a bulk of voters, he is speeding towards certain catastrophe, while denying himself any prospect of an escape route. I mean the boats discovering the Channel.

Varieties of migrants doing the 21-mile journey are up by 42 per cent on the same duration in 2015. An analysis by The Times, using similar modelling as Border Force, forecasts that 50,000 individuals will cross the Channel in little boats in 2025. That would be a yearly record - and a stonking debacle for Sir Keir.

Peering into his mind, I reckon there are 2 main possible descriptions for his behaviour. One is that he is misguiding himself. He really thinks numbers will come down once the measures he has actually taken start to work.

If Starmer still believes that his policies - tossing numerous millions at the French authorities, improving intelligence and utilizing boosted police powers - will reduce the numbers, that actually is the triumph of hope over experience. The other possibility is that he is already beginning dimly to understand that his stratagems won't bear much, if any, fruit. So he and the Government have actually chosen to pull the wool over our eyes. A deadly technique.

There have been two such examples in recent 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 people feel !?) the PM made a slippery claim.

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

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

He boasted that 'practically 30,000 people' had actually been gotten rid of from the UK by this Government. Sounds great. But in truth this figure describes all kinds of migrants who have no right to be in our nation. 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 mustn't implicate Labour prime ministers, far less Sir Keir Starmer KCB, PC, KC, MP, of informing purposeful fibs. Shall we settle for an analytical deception?

The other instance of the Government not being entirely straight was the Home Office's claim earlier today that there have been more migrants this year due to the fact that of pleasant weather. These are called 'red days', when the sea is calm.

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

The most likely explanation is that last May and June the Government's plan to send unlawful migrants to Rwanda had actually lastly cleared persistent judicial blockage. Some, a minimum of, were hindered from crossing the Channel for worry of being packed off to the central African nation.

The Rwanda scheme was far from perfect - it was pricey, and accountable to legal obstacle since the nation has an authoritarian federal government - however at least it had some prospect of hindering migrants. The inbound Labour Government discarded its only plausible ways of curbing the boats.

Good for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who in a speech tomorrow will undertake to reanimate a plan noticeably similar to the Rwandan one.

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

The truth is that the French will never ever strain themselves since every migrant who leaves their shores is one less migrant for them to worry about. It is naive to imagine that they are ever going to be zealous on our behalf.

STEPHEN GLOVER: Keir Starmer is a soft man who can not understand the real wicked Britain is dealing with

Nor will Sir Keir's idea of improving intelligence and police be definitive. As for Labour's reported intent to tinker with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act so as to preclude fake asylum claims, that is welcome, but even if it becomes law it is not likely to have much result on total numbers.

Are the PM and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper starting to panic as they understand they don't have a single policy likely to satisfy their guarantee of 'smashing the gangs'? If they aren't desperate, they jolly well ought to be.

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

Maybe the Government will encourage the Kosovans or the North Macedonians to set up 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 restore.

I've no particular wish to throw Starmer a lifeline but, as I have actually suggested before, there's one possible path out of the hole he has actually dug for himself - though it would take huge decision and courage for him to take it.

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

Recruit medical professionals and officials to evaluate claims quicker than happens at present - and then return most migrants to where they originated from. The expense of establishing such a camp would be a portion of the ₤ 4.3 billion invested in 2015 on housing migrants and asylum candidates.

Can anybody inform me why not? Few migrants would expensive kicking their heels for months in a camp, however gentle, so it would be a marvellous deterrent. Cross the Channel, and you will be our visitor - on a perhaps windy island rather than in a four-star hotel.

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

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

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

RwandaAngela RaynerLabourWes Streeting