Aces High: Chloe Swarbrick guns down Paula Bennett in a drug fueled argument live on national TV!

"I don't want to know who you use, as long as they're not complete muppets." - Hatchet Harry in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

In all the made-up controversy about Jamie-Lee Ross and whats her name last week many people may not have noticed that the first shots were fired in the debate over cannabis reform when Chloe Swarbrick, Green Party drug reform spokesperson, hammered National Party mouthpiece, former hash-house waitress and dole bludger Paula Bennett, for her wishy-washy stance on the issue while both were being interviewed on Breakfast TV.

But don’t just take my word for it go watch the clip and see for yourself a serious piece of foreshadowing of the upcoming national debate about legalizing the sweet leaf because if Bennett is going to remain Nationals spokesperson (wait let me put that in quotation marks) “spokesperson” for drug reform then two things are immediately apparent:

1. Paula Bennett has no idea what she is talking about, and 
2. Simon Bridges move of Bennett to the “new” portfolio of drug reform was similar to John Key sending Gerry Brownlee to Defense; ie to get the dead wood out of sight where it can’t do any damage

Well a fat doobies lot of good that did as Bennett's appearance with some bottle blonde talking head on morning TV came across from the start as world championship level political gibberish as she mush mouthed her way though the intro with a pasted-on smile while waffling factually ambiguous dialog that used as many words as possible to say as little as possible.

And Swarbrick knew it.

Bennett used two sentences to state the obvious by telling the viewers already knew; that there was a referendum on the matter, that it was binding and that it was a “big move for the country” which is absolute rubbish when half the country is likely to be smoking the stuff.

But its that third sentence that slid out of Bennett’s mouth which shows where Nationals debate plan is going and that Paula had been heavily coached to vomit out a set of talking points by saying that she wanted “all of the arguments out on the table” and that people “are looking at the evidence” before uttering the kind of line that no “spokesperson” should ever utter and that spin doctors dread when she almost proudly stated that she “did not have all the answers” but she would like them before she voted.

After that it was all downhill and I won’t bore the readers with a play by play but it’s worth watching to see Bennett fielding softball style questions from the peroxide talking head and then carefully regurgitating the kind of moralistic platitudes which were just a hare short of simply screeching “wont somebody please think of the children!” if only to remember why watching political debate via breakfast television is a bad idea.

But its there at about the 1.50 mark when Bennet’s yap stopped and Swarbricks attack started.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not rooting for Swarbrick, the Greens or cannabis reform but right from her opening line you could tell something was going to happen when she [Swarbrick] said she wished she was in the studio so she could shake Paula’s hand, which is an incredibly queer thing for a politician to say about or to another politician, let alone a normal human being because you only ever say that you want to shake a person’s hand when you:

1. Genuinely want to shake their hand (and then immediately proceed to do so), or
2. Are taking the piss out of them with a backhanded compliment

And I don’t think that Swarbrick would ever want to touch Bennett let alone maintain some kind of skin contact for the time needed to shake her hand, but I digress.

After that the whole interview played itself out like this: 

• Bennett mouths some sort of feeble cliché-ridden platitude, and
• Swarbrick exposes Bennett as nothing but an empty head dispensing other people’s grotesque thoughts and lies with reason, logic and facts

It was like watching Rafael Nadal playing a French open grand slam match against a wheelchair bound, mentally disabled, cripple child as every single stupid statement that Bennett oozed out of her perpetually grinning mouth was blasted back at her with terrible force and just a touch of patronizing voice tone to make clear that Swarbrick knew that Bennett was nothing more than an empty, thoughtless vessel doing evil work.

Bennett going into the debate probably thought she would just repeat what her brain coach had made her say 15 or 20 times while waiting in the Green Room before going on and hey presto her work as drug reform spokesperson would be done for the day.

Well it didn’t play out like that and the contrast between the old, tired and corrupted Bennett and the young, hungry and astute Swarbrick was hideously obvious.

You would almost think that Swarbrick knew in advance what Bennett was going to say given her responses but what I think is more likely is that Swarbrick has a brain and did her homework while Bennett did not do her homework and was left with nothing to say but more of the same talk about getting a “balanced argument” which in political terms means muddying the water just enough to sow confusion and doubt in the minds of voters so that the old political instincts kick back in and they vote along party lines rather than on their own personal preference.

And on an issue like drug reform this kind of disingenuous approach is needed because its an issue that is not politically partisan as its not just Green Party members which buy a tinnie, roll a doob, get the munchies and macramé their ass into the sofa but around half of the country (or more) so trying to enforce the party line would not work.

Not that Paula did not try by cramming in some tough talking, anti-crime comments which would have sounded good coming from the mouth of Judith Collins but from Bennett just sounded like the kind of emergency talking point you pull out of your sweaty ass when the debate has gone south and you know your lost but don’t want to look like you just got kicked around like a pair of cheap women’s shoes.

And this is where the comparison between Bennett, an aged long-time recipient of state welfare and free education turned political hypocrite and mindless cog in the National Party machine, and Swarbrick, a young, astute businesswoman turned politician showed most clearly.

Nothing Bennett said sound like an original thought while Swarbrick always seemed one (well actually several) steps ahead and the whole agonizing nine-minute segment ended with Swarbricks final coup-de-grace statement that labelled Bennett’s behavior a “cynical political move”, again delivered in that slightly patronizing Epsom Grammar tone of voice, while Paula’s face went from Resting to Seething in under three seconds.

Now we all know that all politics is essentially a “cynical move” but when it comes to two sides intellectually duking it out over an issue such as cannabis people tend to go with the side that makes the most sense and Bennett, with her essentially pointless middle ground mush, did not make sense and this is why Swarbrick labeling her position cynical did make sense and resonated.

The Green party has kept a low profile after its beating at the last election and James Shaw (now looking more and more like a middle tier Bond villain in both face and dress) has done nothing to show any leadership but if Swarbrick can keep on this path, she could easily out Jacinda Jacinda and be the first ever Green PM; she was that good!

Her performance alone was not enough for me to forgive the Greens and vote for them again but it was enough to make me reconsider the doomed course that Shaw has steered the party with its disastrous decent into social activism and identity politics but only if Swarbrick can get Shaw’s hand off the steering wheel.

However its painfully clear that Bennett is on the way out politically and Swarbrick is on the way up.

Bennett, in her "new" role as drug reform "spokesperson", is being put out to pasture, just like Brownlee and Mcully were before while Swarbrick is obviously keen to make some political capital by tearing strips off the back of  an easy target  that the aging political neanderthal Paula Bennett is.

Also as Bennett is part of the Gang of Five (Brownlee, Smith, Collins, Joyce and Bennett) so her legacy is little more than a walking, talking reminder of why we currently have Jacinda Ardern as PM as Bennett has never been more than a political brown-shirt for National and as such is subject to the same fate as all stooges and lackeys when regime change occurs.

Political antics aside, my own personal thoughts on cannabis reform is that unless the drug is regulated in the same way that gambling is in NZ (ie the money raised from it* only goes back to the community) and that the discussion about alcohol is brought into line with it then I would see it decriminalized but not legalized as if you can have big tobacco and big booze you can have big marijuana (and their attendant health and social problems that these vested interests foster in the name of profits).

Final thought is that if Swarbrick can keep this up the debate will be over before its starts and its clear that Bennett has been sent on a suicide mission (by Simon Bridges no less) as the means to justify her sooner or later removal from the National party.

And I am cool with both things.

*-excepting casinos of course