Konstantin Kisin

Unable to respond to my criticism of his government's failure on immigration and the attempt to demonize millions of normal British people who dared to notice that failure, he instead tried to suggest that I'm a bigot.

You said Rishi Sunak isn't English because he's a brown Hindu was his retort.

This is a skillful lie on several levels, the purpose of which was to deflect attention away from his and his party's failings.

Here's how it works.

First, he deliberately concealed from the viewer that my comments were made in a discussion of the difference between British and English identity, so that it looks like I was saying Rishi Sunak doesn't belong in Britain.

That's not what I was saying.

Second, he failed to mention that in that very same conversation I explained that my son, born to two immigrant parents like Sunak, is also, in my view, not English.

No matter how evil Douglas Alexander thinks I am, even he could hardly accuse me of being racist against my own children.

Third, he failed to mention that Fraser Nelson, the journalist with whom we were having the debate, wrote an article afterwards describing my view, with which he disagrees, as a perfectly fair point.

Fourth, he failed to mention that Fraser was the one that brought up Rishi Sunak, not me.

I don't go around discussing who's English and who isn't.

And fifth, finally, and most importantly, he didn't mention that prior to being elected, Rishi Sunak described himself as British Indian, saying, British Indian is what I take on the census.

We have a category for it.

I am thoroughly British.

This is my home and my country.

But my religious and cultural heritage is Indian.

My wife is Indian.

These five steps is how you go from two people having a reasonable discussion about their views of what it means to be English and British to pretending that one of them is evil.

Even if you disagree with what I said or thought I didn't articulate my point well, this is dishonest framing.

Why do they do this?