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 so by Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner or anybody else.
He's a politician, after all, and politicians delight in power - Starmer more than the majority of, I would believe. I likewise suggest that he's at least averagely smart, and need to be able to weigh up the chances of any policy being successful.
After the battles, compromises and embarrassments associated with attaining high workplace, Starmer has no intent of throwing everything away. Why, then, does he show every sign of doing so?
On the single problem that might matter most to a bulk of citizens, he is speeding towards specific disaster, while denying himself any prospect of an escape path. I indicate the boats discovering the Channel.
Varieties of migrants doing the 21-mile journey are up by 42 percent on the exact same period last year. An analysis by The Times, utilizing similar modelling as Border Force, predicts that 50,000 individuals 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 two primary possible descriptions for his behaviour. One is that he is misguiding himself. He truly thinks numbers will come down as soon as the steps he has taken start to work.
If Starmer still believes that his policies - tossing numerous millions at the French authorities, improving intelligence and utilizing improved police powers - will decrease the numbers, that truly is the victory of hope over experience. The other possibility is that he is already starting dimly to understand that his stratagems will not 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 been two such examples in recent days. Having said 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 powerful in his locker, Stephen Glover writes
Only 2,240 small-boat migrants were sent home in the 12 months to March, 3 percent fewer than in the previous year
He boasted that 'practically 30,000 individuals' had been eliminated from the UK by this Government. Sounds excellent. But in fact this figure refers to 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 less than in the previous year.
A lie? Good God no! We mustn't accuse Labour prime ministers, far less Sir Keir Starmer KCB, PC, KC, MP, of telling purposeful fibs. Shall we opt for a statistical deception?
The other circumstances of the Government not being totally directly was the Home Office's claim previously this week that there have actually been more migrants this year since of pleasant weather. These are called 'red days', when the sea is calm.
But an analysis by my associate David Barrett in yesterday's Mail shows that in temperate May in 2015 there were 21 'red days' however only 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 taped crossing the Channel.
The most likely explanation is that last May and June the Government's plan to send out unlawful migrants to Rwanda had finally cleared relentless judicial blockage. Some, a minimum of, were deterred from crossing the Channel for worry of being loaded off to the central African country.
The Rwanda scheme was far from ideal - it was pricey, and accountable to legal difficulty because the nation has an authoritarian government - but a minimum of it had some possibility of deterring migrants. The incoming Labour Government got rid of its only plausible means of suppressing the boats.
Good for Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who in a speech tomorrow will carry out to resurrect a strategy noticeably comparable to the Rwandan one.
Starmer now has nothing powerful in his locker. Literally absolutely nothing. He can offer further millions to the French government but it will not make much, if any, difference. French authorities will still loll around on beaches, thinking of the sand castles they made as kids, as they watch 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 think of that they are ever going to be zealous on our behalf.
STEPHEN GLOVER: Keir Starmer is a soft guy who can not understand the true wicked Britain is dealing with
Nor will Sir Keir's concept of enhancing intelligence and law enforcement be decisive. As for Labour's reported intention to play with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act so as to prevent bogus asylum claims, that is welcome, however even if it becomes law it is not likely to have much effect on general numbers.
Are the PM and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper beginning to stress as they realise they do not have a single policy likely to satisfy their guarantee of 'smashing the gangs'? If they aren't desperate, they jolly well need to be.
Three weeks ago, Sir Keir was humiliated after he had applauded talks over Rwanda-style 'return centers' only minutes before his Albanian equivalent, 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 plan. But if it does, it will take months, if not years, and individuals will question why Sir Keir cancelled a plan that he is at least partially attempting to revive.
I've no particular wish to toss Starmer a lifeline however, as I have actually suggested before, there's one possible course out of the hole he has actually dug for himself - though it would take enormous determination and guts for him to take it.
There are lots of uninhabited British islands off our coast and more afield. Pick one of them. Create a camp similar to those on the Isle of Man that housed alien internees throughout the War. Build numerous huts - rather than erecting less strong tents, as ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe has actually proposed.
Recruit physicians and officials to assess claims quicker than happens at present - and after that return most migrants to where they originated from. The cost of setting up such a camp would be a portion of the ₤ 4.3 billion invested in 2015 on housing migrants and asylum candidates.
Can anyone tell me why not? Few migrants would expensive kicking their heels for months in a camp, nevertheless humane, so it would be a wonderful deterrent. Cross the Channel, and you will be our guest - on a perhaps windy island rather than in a four-star hotel.
Granted, in order to ward off vexatious legal difficulties we 'd probably have to derogate from the European Court of Human Rights, which would be a step too far for our mindful Prime Minister.
But he doesn't have a much better idea. In truth, he hasn't got any ideas at all that are accountable to stem the growing varieties of individuals streaming throughout the English Channel.
Things can just get worse - and as they do Labour will sink ever lower in public esteem. Does Sir Keir Starmer really wish to be the signatory of his own political death warrant?
RwandaAngela RaynerLabourWes Streeting
