NDP leadership debate: December 4

I'll throw my home open to anyone who wants to watch the CPAC coverage with me. Hell, I'll even buy the beer.  

Two comments about the debate:

1. Each candidate will have only six minutes in each language to make his/her points. This is far too little to get a sense of their real abilities. Anyone can memorize a couple answers in French and sound convincing but it is unlikely to be  true test. The format handicaps strong candidates and protects weak ones.

2. Be cautious of the online polls which are open to everyone. The CBC online poll on leadership preferences was badly skewed by the camp of one particular candidate which swamped it, thereby rendering it meaningless.

Everyone have a good time tomorrow and try to be objective about who performed best regardless of any preset preferences.

How about a helicopter for access. Call it a fishing party.

I'll look for Peter's email address and see what he says.

A search and rescue mission, surely?

Speaking of which, if anyone needs to hide out for a while, this is a pretty isolated territory. I have a foam mattress you can use.

Yick. He doesn't have any tone of voice other than snark. Who picks these people. Really an awful choice.

I just checked out his blog. Concur.

Unfortunately, Charles Taylor and David Lewis's liveblogging schedules were all booked up.

Accidental Deliberations, Dennis Gruending, Dr. Dawg, Alison at Creekside .... need I go on ....

Ah yes, the snarkless four.

Those are good blogs, Oo--although I doubt Baglow would take the invitation--especially Alison's. But rabble.ca followed a different recruitment strategy than "ask some blogs we like." You disagree with the choice, fine. I think his blog is sharp and witty. Quite suitable for the medium.

At any rate, we can keep our usual snark-free zone here on babble during the debates as a helpful tonic...

to me this guy loses all credibility when his main comment about Niki Ashton is the "poor qulity of her French" (sic.). I'm not necessarily supporting Niki and I have other concerns about her as a poetntial leader - but if there is one thing no reasonable person could attack her for - its her French. I would say that she is almost 100% fluent and that her French abilities are probably one of her biggest strengths as a candidate not a weakness.

I don't have anything personal invested in Ling or his blog, so I'm totally open to criticism of both his blog and of rabble.ca's decision to use him. But the former should happen at his place and the latter should either happen via email (editor[at]rabble.ca) or in a separate thread. Let's not let it disrupt our conversation here about the debates, okay?

This is going to be my Grey Cup. And without Nickelback.

So far the intros are fantastic on all candidates, were they all suppose to start in English? Since I noticed Mulcair and Saganash started in French.

and the ndp site doesn't work, im on cpac now.

I don't understand why people don't plan their wardrobes better. Why would Chisholm wear a blue tie? Why is Mulcair wearing red?

My views on the opening statements:

Chisholm - Did not speak strongly, for a prepared speech he was forgetting what to say.

Ahston - She did much better then Chisholm and spoke strongly.

Topp - I didn't really understand everything he was trying to say.

Cullen - Spoke better and laid out a vision.

Mulcair - Isn't this suppose to be the English portion, why is he speaking in French? Nothing great said.

Dewar -  Telling who he is, and lays out some of his vision.

Saganash - Not a strong speaker, mentions wanting to be Prime Minister though.

Nash - Spoke strongly laid out a vision, and mentioned a bit of who she is.

Singh - For someone who is considered the long-shot rookie he was one of the better speakers.

I think Ashton, Dewar and Nash (not in any particular order) were the best.

I thought they all did very good but, Singh was focused a bit too much on pharmacare. He seems like a one issue candidate. Saganash doesn't seem to be the strongest speaker, but does seem friendly. The rest have done exceptionally well.

Singh's confidence is impressive. Cullen is also good, it's a shame he holds views abhorrent to me. Topp is better than I'd expected, and Saganash shakier.

Mulcair doesn't seem to have much passion when he speaks.

I think Mulcair will do well when he debates directly /w another candidate.

Cullen is doing very well in the first debate.

I don't think Topp is doing so well, a bit aggressive.

Are Topp and Dewar members of the same party?

Is Saganash sick?  He seems to be having trouble talking or something.

Cullen is a better speaker then Saganash and Chisholm, and I think he came off better. Tweeters agree he was better.

Mulcairwas smart to bring up his past experience. Dewar showed up Topp when he tried to change the subject by bringing it back to the topic at hand, this is much more lively. Mulcair probably came off the best but I also liked Dewar, I didn't like Topp at this part at all. Dewar did manage to get his plan for an east-west power grid out there which was great.

Nash, Ashton and Sighn's section was dull compared to the previous debate. I'm impressed with Ashton's speaking, but I didn't take much away from this part.

I feel there are to many candidates to get to really understand where they stand on issues in detail.

Ashston would be winning more points with her strong performance if she would stop saying 'new politics' so much.

Cullen speaks really well - I didn't know - and he's got a sense of humour. Dewar - not. Mulcair - never speaks in formulas, which many of the others do. Nash is doing better than I expected.

Saganash - formulas. Unimpressive. Ashton - meh, could be a little more conversational. Singh - yeah, I get it, I get it, you're a businessman! Ok, ok, where do I sign?

Topp - intelligent. Not sure why he decided to crank Dewar up. But wow was it easy.

Notice how I avoided any discussion of content? Content is negotiable.

Cullen asking Ashton what she thought of his plan was pretty dirty.

Dewar's appeal is still lost on me.

And I have to say, I'm liking Topp better now. Not well enough to vote for him, but enough to be relatively comfortable with him should he win.

Topp tried to trap Nash by asking how she reconciled environment and economy when she was assistant to Buzz Hargrove. She was more than prepared. Nice try, Brian.

Quite so. It's refreshing.

On points, I would say Muclair is ahead, and I would not have expected that when the debate started.  He is also coming across as much easier to work with than Topp, who frankly is coming off as a bit of a smug ass.

I'm not sure if that was a trap.

Topp has done better, but it doesn't make him the best of the debate. He may recover in the French part.

Cullen has been very articulate. Mulcair as well is detailed. Nash has been outstanding, perhaps the best so far.

Dewar has done well. Ashton is also very confident.

Edit: damned cpac live is now having buffering issues.

Chisholm's french is embarassing lol 

I wasn't fussy on Topp before the debate, and this debate made me like him less. I'm surprised Jeff that you like him more after this but everyone got their own opinions.

Cullen has a sense of humour but I still don't find him that great. Chisholm is not a very strong speaker for someone who was the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I expected Mulcair to stand out more in this debate then he did and I actually think Ashton was one of the best. She's a strong clear speaker, she's straight forward and gets to the point when she speaks.

I shall declare Nash as the major winner of the English debate portion. She has definately gone up in my list, now lets see how well they do in French

My scorecard reads, after the English debate:

1) Nash, Mulcair, Ashton  (top tier)

2) Dewar, Cullen, Topp  (middle tier)

3) Saganash, Chisholm, Singh  (bottome tier)

I wonder if Topp cranked up Dewar as a tactic to keep Mulcair out of the picture as much as possible?

And this is for Unionist: Romeo Saganesh has the best hair.

Did Chisholm speak in English :( ?

Saganash is far better in French. I shouldn't be surprised. But guess what... Cullen's pronunciation and syntax are pretty weak - but wow, he's "natural". I know lots of anglos here who talk like he does, and they get along just fine. Mind you, it might have been a canned response, but if so, he pulled it off well.

Nash - no one here speaks French that way. And she's not "natural". Disappointing.

Topp's fine, of course. And Mulcair. Mulcair still speaking calmly, convincingly, off the cuff, or seemingly anyway, which is just as good.

Dewar - yikes. Painful pronunciation. But the worst is the same as in English - wooden, nervous, deer in headlights - what's the matter with him?

Chisholm spoke in English and has a simultaneous translation device in his ear. Dewar's French was atrocious! I am so disappointed.

Cullen is showing well speaking French, Dewar is having problems, Singh is not bad at all. Only Chisolm has to do it in English.

And hey... no one told me Singh could speak French! Either that or he's been brilliantly rehearsed. Waiting to hear him in the ad lib stuff.

Reading through people's tweets it was interesting to see some thought Dewar was great and some thought he did a bad job.

Just my estimation of his ability to hold his own in a debate. While my estimation of Saganash's ability to do the same has fallen considerably. It's not everything, but it's an important thing in our politics.

Mulcair's is the freshest voice today, IMO.

My instincts about Saganash from the convention were right... he's a shaky speaker in English and seems to get flustered. But in French he just flies.

Cullen's French is vastly better than I had thought it would be. Dewar's is painful to listen to. 

"comme le fighter jets"LOL

Not bad (Singh)! He's really giving it the college try. He's actually coming across as less nervous than Cullen (whose French is obviously better). And Mulcair - what happened to all the "abrasive" and "argumentative" etc.? He's doing extremely well.

I think Mulcair is equally capable of being a teddy bear or a grizzly bear depending on what the situation necessitates.

Ashton's French is good. Tiny bit nervous, but she's fluent enough. In fact, it makes her sound a little less demagogic than in English. That's not the adjective I'm looking for.

Saganash and Singh are doing suprisingly well in my view. Dewar is incredibly stiff.  Topp and Nash are definitely the winners in my view so far. Both seem natural. Topp tops Nash where language is concerned. Mulcair.. oy, the constant self-boasting is a bit tiring, as was that little stunt he pulled where he spoke English in the French debate. Nice opportunity to show his "lighter" side. 

Yay Niki - supporting workers, not just the "economy"!

There's a young guy yawning behind Chisholm!   Now he looks like he fell asleep, and woke up with a start - he's listening to Chisholm and wondering "what the hell?"

Chisholm should drop, its unacceptable. Topp speaks the best. Nash,Mulcair, and Saganash have also done incredibly well.

Next to Singh, perhaps.

I hadn't realized Saganash was so much more confident in French than in English. The difference is striking.

Chisholm really doesn't deserve to be there if he can't even make an effort in French. It's an insult.

Is Topp trying to show he's "tough" enough to go against Harper? Your first introduction with all the candidates and you're looking like a snarky pitbull. Not coming across well. You could even see it in the audience.

My new French ranking: Saganash=Mulcair>Topp>Nash>Ashton>Cullen>Singh>Dewar

Chisholm is neither taking nor answering questions in French.

In terms of who could "grow" in to the job linguistically, I would draw the line at Cullen. He is on the edge of being able to pull it off. Singh needs a few more years of French or some French immersion. His foundation is solid but part of the structure is missing.

Topp is very close to Mulcair and Saganash in terms of French ability. Nash and Ashton both have strong French. Cullen's accent and measured pace saves his bacon but he needs more vocab, better grammar.

I missed the beginning, but here are my impressions.

First, too many candidates. Candidates don't have the time to differentiate each other because they first establish their support of the NDP's values, but then they run out of time to define their own particular positions. Some candidates need to bow out for the good of the race.

I'm thinking that Saganash and Ashton don't currently have the experience for the job. Niki Ashton is young, she'll have more chances if she keeps at it, she may be a rising star, but she hasn't reached the level needed currently. She might have been good if the NDP wasn't in position to become a government in waiting. Saganash is particularly nervous and inexperienced with the political scene. Chisholm and Singh have a lot of trouble in French, that is currently unacceptable for the NDP if it wants to keep its support in Québec. I'd finally say that Gewar also is a bit nervous and not ready either.

Second, Thomas Mulcair and Nathan Cullen are doing the best job in this format. They seem most at ease. Brian Topp seems to know what he is talking about, but he is not as at ease. Currently, I wouldn't vote for him, but he has potential. Peggy Nash is okay, she makes me think of Pelosi a bit also.

There were no opening statements in French (i.e. in the French section). I suspect that is why Mulcair opened in French.

absolutely agree with Unionist above - Cullen is a very nice surprise in this French debate.  He has an ease and confidence that is shocking, even with all his mistakes.

Interesting -  I never would have put Peggy as the winner of English language part.

Saganash seems to be much stronger in French than in English, probably a function of being based in Quebec. Paul Dewar's French is just awful, and I'm disappointed that Chisholm has not progressed to the point where he can participate in the debate.

Among the candidates, Nash and Ashton have moved up on my radar, while Saganash has dropped somewhat. Cullen has interesting things to say, and would be in contention if he hadn't screwed up with the idea of running joint slates.

Stupid question: "Who's your second choice?" I would have asked: "Who's your third choce?"

Saganash really comes alive in the French language debate. He looks wonderful - much more than in the first debate.

Actually, now that I think of it, I asked one of the candidates the same question. So call me stupid! Anyway, some good answers - so I guess it confirms that there are no stupid questions.

To the candidates: "Who is your second choice?"

Dewar -Saganash

Cullen- Nash

Nash- Ashton

Saganash -Undecided

Mulcair -didn't answer

Ashton- didn't answer

Chisholm- didn't answer, likely saving choice until the convention

Topp - Ashton

Singh- didn't answer

Surprisingly, I can most see Cullen going head to head with other party leaders.  Mulcair is good but there's something lacking - maybe he seems too detached?  Topp is also good though I agree that at times he seems smug.  I like his directness and willingness to engage other candidates.

I have no idea who is winning the French debate, so I rely on your opinions.

I would have asked who's your last choice!

And who said that Niki Ashton's French was poor? Cripes! I wish mine was twice as bad!

Whoa - good question from Peggy, wrong answer from Martin, about whether he agrees that a strong public pension plan is the best for workers and for small businesses. Sorry... I promised not to talk about substance... Damn!

Will anyone drop out after this? I can't see Chisholm going forward.

Oy. I believe Chisholm's attempt to ask Topp a question in French actually resulted in the violent death of several cute kittens.

Chisolm should be dropping out.  It's embarrassing.  He will make a great minister some day, but the langauge skills are not just there.

"The prime ministers Barack Obama's best friend" Oh Chisholm... you are teh weakest link

Oh, not very classy, Topp mentions that Broadbent is in the hall. Endorsements forever!

And, yes, Saganash is almost a different candidate in French.  Much more commanding.

Several MPs tried to talk him out of running. He didn't want to listen. But after paying $15,000 to enter, who knows if he will drop out...

Curious: are there any people here who are seeing some of these leadership candidates perform for the first time? I've been enjoying all of your comments... as I always do.. but other than confirming how poor or good each person's French is... I haven't seen any surprises come out of this first debate.  But that said, with the exception of Singh, I'm pretty familiar with all of these people.  I'd be very curious to know what people's first impressions are of the candidates.

Wow, Mulcair, good point which should resonate. We won by going way beyond our traditional constituency in Québec. Gotta do it everywhere.

What did Chisholm just say - it made the youngsters behind him laugh out loud. Something about his ability in French.

English debate. It is hard to score, but here is a stab: Chisholm>Mulcair>Dewar>Topp>Singh>Cullen>Nash>Ashton>Saganash

I'm more confident with my ranking near the lower end than the higher end. Dewar surprised me with his handling of Topp's attack. Dewar didn't addressed the substance of Topp's attack but he found ways to manage the conversation. Chisholm was relaxed at the podium and spoke very clearly. Mulcair was stiff but spoke clearly and played it safe. Topp came across as negative in his attack. It was a good jibe but he needed to avoid interrupting Dewar too much in order to make his point. Singh differentiated himself with interesting policies and solid self-confidence. Cullen was the only candidate that made people laugh, but he repeated himself a lot and did not say much of substance. Nash spoke lethargically. Ashton was platitudinous in the extreme. Saganash seemed very nervous and had trouble communicating.

They're all my second choice.

He said he works hard to learn French but "c'est tough"

BTW, I'm watching the debate at a bar in Toronto with Michelle, Radio Rahim and OldGoat.  Comment of the afternoon (so far): "If invoking Jack Layton was a word drinking game, Mulcair would have us all under the table an hour ago."

Maybe that's what I've been missing... hearing he's quite impressive but then I listen to him it doesn't match up.

Mulcair has helped himself enormously I think.  Topp not so much.  Ashton will be rising on many people's list I expect.  Saganash balanced off a weak english performance with a strong french one, so will likely hold his own. Nash will hold support well, but I don't think will have grown it much- really flubbed the rural/urban divide question.  Dewar was way too stiff.  Singh was too much of a broken record.  Chisholm should drop out.

And Nathan Cullen.  Oh Nathan, if it were not be for your stupid, idiotic proposal on joint nominations you might have made yourself the front runner today.

I'm seeing Singh and Chisholm for the first time. Not impressed by either of them.

Goldhawk is analysing the debate on CPAC.  Chisholm is getting flak.

If Chisholm didn't have the self-awareness to stay out of the race, I'm unsure he has the sense of shame now to quit.

I think Dewar's performance should see him drop in the estimation of many. Topp sounded assured, but looked haughty. Mulcair the warmest and most natural. Saganash's lack of confidence in English shows itself to be a huge stumbling block.

Hmmm...first impressions?

Mulcair was calm and detailed

Nash performed the best in the English Debate

Topp did fantastic in French, I felt that he recovered a bit from the pointless attack on Dewar. He should have realized the time limit doesn't allow for back and forth.

Chisholm should drop ASAP

Singh seems like a single issue candidate. He's more of a cabinet minister than a prime minister

Saganash didn't perform as well as I expected. Perhaps he should stay in the race and we can see if he improves.

Dewar lacked in French.

Ashton has potential, she did very well.

Not sure why Topp would be so "forward" with Dewar and Nash. Does he want to put a bad taste in the mouths of their supporters? Someone should remind him this is a preferential ballot.

Someone who liked Topp said they expected a certain camp would bring up Buzz Hargrove and Peggy... guess they had inside knowledge it would be their own? lol

Am I the only one who was bothered by Chisholm's "give me a chance to learn French" plea at the end of the debate?

nope

Lol'd @ the first call. Knows Cullen personally.

Interesting that more than one person has ranked Dewar's French higher than Cullen's. My impression was the reverse, by far. Granted I am not a first-language francophone, but Cullen's French flows very naturally and Dewar's stutters. Did those with more perceptive ears found Cullen's to be more flawed than I did?

I'm very disappointed with my PVR. While it did allow me to switch the audio track to French on CPAC, what I didn't know was that every time I switched the audio track it hacked up the recording into little bits. And I can't actually switch the audio track when I play back the recording. 

Chisholm should absolutely drop out.

Yes, Cullen was much better in French.

No, I would put Cullen ahead of Dewar even if his grammar is worse, simply because I think Francophones would find Cullen the more engaging speaker.  I don't know Cullen's background, but it would seem that with a bit of targeted training he could become very good indeed.  Dewar likely has a cap on how good he can get.

Won't happen. And it's not just getting there for the next election... you need to be able to engage those who speak French for the three or four before the election.

I like Robert a lot. But if you're not bilingual, don't run. Period.

I kinda liked Justin Ling's approach.

caller on CPAC: "Stephen Harper's cat has more charisma than he does".

During the debate, Cullen had the best line on  a national housing strategy:  "If the government believes building more prisons is a national housing strategy, then the government is not only out of touch, but has lost its mind".

Than Dewar, I assume you mean. Yes, though both are improved from early days. Cullen has worked hard on his accent and fluency, though he still makes a lot of grammatical errors. Dewar is better than he was in all areas, but was starting from further back.

How do you figure Cullen's grammar was worse? Dewar missed basic items that are first taught to anyone learning French formally.

I feel like I should like Mulcair better after his performance, but I don't.  Something about his demeanour seemed phony. 

Maybe it's just me.

I thought Mulcair was okay. In the English debate, I scored him second after Nash. Topp is in the middle tier in my opinion.

My verdict: I thought Mulcair and Cullen were the best all-around performers in both debates, though Mulcair, being more bilingual, had the clear advantage. Nash was nearly as good, though she came across as somewhat less engaging than those two.

All of the others also impressed on some fronts, but revealed various weaknesses at the same time.

I think Dewar should drop out too. His French is painful to listen to.

Ashton is the most platitudinous and annoying of all the candidates to me. All she does is say "New Politics" x, "New Politics" y, and talks a heck of a lot for saying nothing of substance. I wish she would drop, but it sounds like people were impressed, with what (her youth?) I do not know.

No she isn't "almost 100% fluent". She thinks in English and translates (very fast, mind you) into French. For example, she said "Je vous demande pour votre appui." That's not just an error - it's a sign of someone who rarely has occasion to speak French in real life, or doesn't listen much. Not a criticism of Niki. I'm sure she knows her limits and is working on them. But not up to your rating yet.

The only person who's French was worse than Dewar's was Chisholm's IMO.

Mulcair is getting the first press conference.

I think he did very well and was impressive. He is going up in my stock. 

Other folks who impressed. Singh (I had no real expectations) and Ashton.

I really wish that Cullen was not so loud about his bad ideas.

Who did not perform? Topp and Chisholm. Chisholm should drop out.

I think he held back because the media narrative out there is that he's an attack dog and doesn't play well with others. If you watch him in debate with Tories and Liberals on panels for example, he's quite "lively". But if he showed any of that in this debate, I could see some of the headlines now...

Funny... Topp was the one who came across the way the media portray Mulcair. Just spoke with a couple of Nash and Dewar supporters. They aren't too fond of him right now.

I think Cullen's style masks some of his mistakes, and that Dewar's nerves got the better of him.  But, I'm in no way committed to the idea that Dewar's formal French is better, either.  I prefer Cullen's French, period.

Goldhawk on Mulcair's "aggressiveness":  

"(John) Baird has a baseball bat; Mulcair has a sword".

Here is my assessment of the shortcomings of some of the candidates, and what can be done.

Chisholm has no French, and I doubt that issue can be rectified.

Dewar may be well advised to do some remedial French.

Saganash needs to practice and become more comfortable in English.

Nash needs to learn more about the challenges facing people outside large urban centres.

Ashton should couple her energy and enthusiasm with some concrete policies, proposals, and accomplishments.

Cullen unfortunately can't go back in time and un-announce the idea of running joint candidates with the Liberals and Greens.

All the analysts on "Goldhawk" agree the audience in the background was distracting.

I stopped watching a few minutes into the French debate, from what I saw on Twitter people thought that Saganash had the best French with Mulcair and Topp next. What was interesting though was that someone said Mulcair and Topp's French was comparable to Rae's and Ignatieff's. Several people were also saying that Cullen was actually better then both Ashton and Nash. Dewar's French was compared to Harper's several years ago, but he was better the Singh and obviously Chisholm. 

Dewar and Cullen were given props for most promoting their policies. 

I won't be scoring the French portion of the debate, largely because I tuned out for the middle part of it. Two hours is a long time to watch and a lot of the answers were repeated. The quality of some of the candidates' French was also distracting. One thing that is true is that Saganash is a completely different candidate in French. Very commanding.

Mulcair had me running to google when he said "clef de voûte." He has an anglo accent that comes out now and again. Topp made grammatical mistakes and stumbled around with his sentences. Topp's accent is great. Something tells me that since he left Québec, Topp hasn't had as much ocassion to use French and so he is more accustomed to thinking in English grammatical structures. Saganash has the best accent and speaks excellent French. The only way in which Cullen's French is better than Ashton or Nash is that he has more of a joual [122] accent, like Layton. 

Cullen's accent was brought up in tweets.

I thought Sagenesh just had a "Jack Layton" moment. He said that he was very excited to be on the stage with the next Prime Minister of Canada, and it just made me think of Jack, and I thought to myself, Jack for sure would have said something so optimistic sounding. Good for him.

Watching Niki Ashton now, she makes me think of Judy. The same kind of mannerism, the same kind of animation, the same kind of enthusiasim, the same kind of attack and lucidity.

You know, I looked at these people and I thought to myself there is no way I was in their league in any way, but I also got the feeling that really meant it when they talked about meeting the needs of all Canadians. I felt a little more positive.

I thought Mulcair was best in both English in French. Ashton impressed me. Cullen was excellent in English and acceptable in French. Singh surprised me the most. A good speaker but too focused on Pharmacare and a few other issues. However, he would make a great MP. Topp seems to lack charisma or even the ability to attract attention to his ideas. Nash spoke well but in a monotone and lacks charisma. I've seen her before having to answer questions on the HST in BC issue where she stumbled as badly as any rookie politician, did not seem to know the issue well and spoke in a monotone. I need to see her in more situations where she cannot anticipate the questions or dealing with issues that are not her strong suit. I hope Chisholm learns a little French so he does not embarrass himself again. Saganesh struggled a little in English and seems a little shy for a political leader. Dewar's French is only one step of Chisholm and he did not seem forceful enough is English.

From the media scrum, Chisholm isn't budging. He's got to realize he's taking up space.

I felt much the same way. I must say Niki Ashton did much better than I expected - I have her third overall in the English debate, behind Nash and Mulcair.

Who won the French debate???

Note to candidates (at least three of them, if not more, made that mistake): en français, on n'adresse pas des problèmes. On se penche sur ces problèmes, on s'y attaque, on les règle, si tout va bien... Apologies for this somewhat trivial remark, but hearing this construction 5 or 6 times was a little grating.

Of the various assessments, the following one made by dacckon is the one that most closely mirrors mine:

Long thread!

Continue back in your regular scheduled NDP Leadership thread, vol 44