Deliberately misleading

Blogging Horse has partially demolished Con MP Gerald Keddy's sad attempt to attack the NDP's position on EI. But there are a couple more points in Keddy's letter which are equally obviously false or worse...so let's set the record straight.

Keddy:

If (the NDP) actually cared about improving the EI system, why did they join the Liberals in refusing to even sit on the panel?

Now, it's worth pointing out that this goes beyond mere falsehood to the realm of absurdity. After all, the "EI panel" which Keddy is referring to was based on a deal cut between Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper - who both had obvious reasons not to offer the NDP any chance to participate, and by all accounts designed the panel to exclude the NDP and the Bloc precisely to remove them from the table.

Of course, if Keddy wants to provide even a shred of evidence that the NDP was offered the chance to join the Libs in lunching with Pierre Poilievre but declined the opportunity, he's welcome to do so. But as best I can tell, this passage makes about as much sense as pointing fingers at the NDP for the progress of a bill through the Senate, or the Bloc for failing to represent their constituents outside Quebec.

In sum, Keddy looks to have taken a step past the Tom Flanagan standard for credibility. Never mind even trying to be plausible; better instead to make an utterly nonsensical accusation and let one's opponents try to spend explain why it's firmly grounded in the Cons' Kool-Aid rather than anything even remotely resembling reality.

Worse yet, the only suggestion the NDP have made to reform EI is to give a full year of benefits to anyone who works a mere 45 days!

This time, the statement can actually be classified as true or false based on some grounding in reality. But even if one ignores the fact that the criticism of the 360-hour eligibility standard as giving rise to a "full year of benefits" is itself false, the statement that the NDP hasn't offered any other proposals ranges somewhere between more false, even more false and so false it may have originated with Deficit Jim Flaherty himself.

Deliberately misleading and disingenuous come to mind.

Here at least Keddy deserves some credit for honesty: "deliberately misleading" and "disingenuous" are certainly words which deserve to be linked to him, both in the rest of this particular letter and in his general dealings with the public. Which leaves only the question of whether he can deceive enough voters into clinging to a seat which otherwise figures to go orange.

(Edit: fixed wording.)