There’s still almost two months until NDP members start voting and a lot can change. But by the only measures we have — fundraising and endorsements — Jagmeet Singh is the front-runner in the NDP leadership race.

That perception has others launching attacks on Singh, not always fairly.

One line of attack has come over a series of anti-poverty proposals by Singh. His plan would eliminate several tax deductions available to even the highest-income earners and redirect the freed-up money to low-income seniors, workers and disabled Canadians.

Some other candidates have taken a swing — and a miss — at Singh on the issue, arguing universal programs are an NDP principle. Well, yes and no.

Yes, the NDP has long-held that social programs—health care, education, childcare, etc.—must have universal access, not access subject to an income-test. All four candidates agree on that. And when you compare the success of Canadian health care to US Medicare, it’s clearly the correct position.

It's time to invest in all Canadians & lift those in need out of poverty. My Income Security Agenda: https://t.co/nkRTSpJDQl#ndpldrpic.twitter.com/eTFs3puuvk — Jagmeet Singh (@theJagmeetSingh) June 11, 2017

But no, that principle doesn’t extend to income transfer programs. In fact — despite the criticism — all four candidates support non-universal, income-tested transfer programs.

Charlie Angus would strengthen the income-tested Working Income Tax Benefit for low-paid workers. Niki Ashton would beef-up the income-tested Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. Guy Caron would create a basic income program that is entirely income-tested.

Watch the full NDP leadership debate here

A second misfire attack came in Ashton’s prepared question for Singh at last week’s leadership debate in Victoria, BC.

In 2015, the Ontario Liberal government revised its sexual education curriculum for the first time since 1987. They changed the curriculum in several ways, including its approach to same-sex relationships and sexual orientation. The changes were supported by NDP MPPs, including Singh.

But Ashton tried to paint a different picture, drawing on a 2015 quote from Hansard, the record of debates in the Ontario legislature.

“You described it as —quote — disrespectful to parents,” charged Ashton. She continued, quoting Singh as saying “that it must respect the diversity of beliefs when it comes to educating our children.”

Singh refuted the accusation. “I repeatedly endorsed the curriculum,” said Singh. What was “disrespectful,” he countered, was the Liberal government “not providing information in a number of languages. I was at a number of rallies where the [political] right was allowed to spread all sorts of misinformation because the government failed to be there when I asked them to come and provide clarification,” said Singh.

And a 2015 video appears to back-up Singh’s answer.

The video shows Singh on stage at an anti-sex ed community meeting. Microphone in hand, speaking in Punjabi, Singh asks the crowd to read the curriculum for themselves before criticizing it. Things get heated and the meeting’s host interjects. Pointing at an anti-sex ed banner, the host tells Singh to “read the sign” and tries to take away the microphone.

“Read what? You don’t even know what’s in the curriculum,” Singh shoots back as he holds onto the microphone and continues.

It’s about 180 degrees opposite the picture Ashton was trying to paint. She should have known it. A full reading of the Hansard reveals what Singh found “disrespectful to parents” was a “lack of inclusive consultation.” Not the curriculum.

In a leadership race, debating a competitor’s positions and raising inconsistencies is a service to members. But spreading untruths invites having them repeated as verified facts at doorsteps in the next election. Don’t do it.

Tom Parkin is a former NDP staffer and social democrat media commentator