Let's presume Sir Keir Starmer wants 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 politician, after all, and political leaders relish power - Starmer more than most, I would believe. I also recommend that he's at least averagely smart, and must be able to weigh up the possibilities of any policy being successful.

After the battles, compromises and embarrassments involved in attaining high office, Starmer has no objective of throwing it all away. Why, then, does he show every indication of doing so?

On the single problem that may matter most to a bulk of citizens, he is hurtling towards certain disaster, while denying himself any possibility of an escape path. I imply the boats discovering the Channel.

Numbers of migrants doing the 21-mile journey are up by 42 percent on the same duration last year. An analysis by The Times, using comparable modelling as Border Force, forecasts that 50,000 people will cross the Channel in little boats in 2025. That would be a yearly record - and a stonking ordeal for Sir Keir.

Peering into his mind, I reckon there are two primary possible descriptions for his behaviour. One is that he is deluding himself. He truly thinks numbers will come down once the measures he has taken start to work.

If Starmer still believes that his policies - throwing numerous millions at the French authorities, enhancing intelligence and using enhanced law enforcement powers - will lower the numbers, that actually is the victory of hope over experience. The other possibility is that he is currently 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 technique.

There have been two such examples in recent days. Having stated in an online post on Monday that he felt 'upset' 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 absolutely 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 individuals' had been removed from the UK by this Government. Sounds good. But in truth this figure refers to all types 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 mustn't implicate Labour prime ministers, far less Sir Keir Starmer KCB, PC, KC, MP, of informing purposeful fibs. Shall we opt for an analytical deception?

The other circumstances of the Government not being totally directly was the Home Office's claim previously today 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 associate David Barrett in the other day's Mail reveals that in temperate May last year there were 21 'red days' but only 2,765 arrivals, about 1,000 less than last month. In mild June 2024 there were 20 'red days', though just 3,007 migrants were recorded crossing the Channel.

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

The Rwanda plan was far from ideal - it was expensive, and responsible to legal challenge since the country has an authoritarian federal government - however a minimum of it had some prospect of preventing migrants. The inbound Labour Government discarded its only possible methods of suppressing the boats.

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

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

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

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

Nor will Sir Keir's idea of enhancing intelligence and police be decisive. When it comes to Labour's reported objective to play with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act so regarding prevent phony asylum claims, that is welcome, but even if it ends up being law it is unlikely to have much effect on general numbers.

Are the PM and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper beginning to stress as they realise they don't have a single policy likely to fulfil their promise of 'smashing the gangs'? If they aren't desperate, they jolly well should 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 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 individuals will wonder why Sir Keir cancelled a plan that he is at least partially attempting to revive.

I've no particular dream to throw Starmer a lifeline however, as I've suggested before, there's one possible path out of the hole he has dug for himself - though it would take massive determination and nerve for him to take it.

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

Recruit physicians and officials to examine claims more rapidly than happens at present - and after that 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 invested in 2015 on housing migrants and asylum applicants.

Can anybody tell 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 guest - on a perhaps windy island instead of in a four-star hotel.

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

But he doesn't have a much better concept. In reality, he hasn't got any ideas at all that are responsible to stem the growing varieties of individuals streaming across the English Channel.

Things can just worsen - 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