GitLab

Let's presume Sir Keir Starmer wishes to win the next election. Let's likewise presume he has no desire to be replaced as Prime Minister in the next year approximately by Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner or anybody else.
davidspencertx.com
He's a political leader, after all, and political leaders enjoy power - Starmer more than the majority of, I would think. I also suggest that he's at least averagely intelligent, and must have the ability to weigh up the chances of any policy succeeding.

After the struggles, compromises and embarrassments associated with attaining high office, Starmer has no intent of throwing everything away. Why, then, does he show every indication of doing so?

On the single concern that may matter most to a bulk of voters, he is hurtling towards specific disaster, while rejecting himself any possibility 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 period in 2015. An analysis by The Times, utilizing comparable modelling as Border Force, forecasts that 50,000 individuals will cross the Channel in small boats in 2025. That would be a yearly record - and a stonking fiasco for Sir Keir.

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

If Starmer still believes that his policies - throwing numerous millions at the French authorities, improving intelligence and using enhanced police powers - will lower the numbers, that really is the victory of hope over experience. The other possibility is that he is already beginning dimly to understand that his stratagems will not bear much, if any, fruit. So he and the Government have decided to pull the wool over our eyes. A deadly approach.

There have been 2 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 believe 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 percent less than in the previous year

He boasted that 'nearly 30,000 people' had been removed 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 country. Only 2,240 small-boat migrants were sent out home in the 12 months to March, 3 percent less 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 intentional fibs. Shall we settle for a statistical deception?

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

But an analysis by my colleague David Barrett in yesterday'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 gentle June 2024 there were 20 'red days', though only 3,007 migrants were recorded crossing the Channel.

The most probable explanation is that last May and June the Government's plan to send prohibited migrants to Rwanda had finally cleared relentless judicial obstruction. Some, a minimum of, were hindered from crossing the Channel for fear of being loaded off to the main African country.

The Rwanda plan was far from ideal - it was expensive, and accountable to legal challenge due to the fact that the country has an authoritarian government - however at least it had some prospect of hindering migrants. The incoming Labour Government threw away its only possible ways of suppressing the boats.

Good 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 powerful in his locker. Literally nothing. He can provide more millions to the French government however it will not make much, if any, difference. French cops will still loll around on beaches, thinking about the sand castles they made as kids, as they view 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 fret about. It is ignorant to envision 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 evil Britain is dealing with

Nor will Sir Keir's idea of enhancing intelligence and police be decisive. As for reported intent to tinker 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 unlikely to have much effect on total numbers.

Are the PM and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper beginning to worry as they understand they do not have a single policy most likely to satisfy their promise of 'smashing the gangs'? If they aren't desperate, they jolly well must be.

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

Maybe the Government will convince 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 question why Sir Keir cancelled an arrangement that he is at least partly attempting to revive.

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

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

Recruit medical professionals and officials to assess claims faster than happens at present - and after that return most migrants to where they originated from. The cost 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 fancy 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 guest - on a possibly windy island rather than in a four-star hotel.

Granted, in order to fend off vexatious legal obstacles we 'd probably 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 idea. In truth, he hasn't got any concepts at all that are liable to stem the growing varieties of people streaming throughout the English Channel.

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

RwandaAngela RaynerLabourWes Streeting