all right

Occasionally adding corroborative details to add verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing,
but veridicous accounts
with careful attention, indefatigable assiduity, and nice discrimination.

25 May, 2013

We Can’t?

Andrew Denton opines that, in Australian politics, “there’s before Whitlam and after Whitlam … and you can’t say that of many politicians.”
We can’t?

In Australian politics there’s before Barton and after Barton;
In Australian politics there’s before Lang and after Lang;
in Australian politics there’s before Lyons and after Lyons;
in Australian politics there’s before Chifley and after Chifley; 
in Australian politics there’s before Menzies and after Menzies; 
in Australian politics there’s before Askin and after Askin
in Australian politics there’s before Bjelke-Peterson and after Bjelke-Peterson;
in Australian politics there’s before Reece and after Reece;
in Australian politics there’s before Hawke and after Hawke;
in Australian politics there’s before Howard and after Howard;
in Australian politics there’s before Hanson and after Hanson;
in Australian politics there’s before Rudd and after Rudd;
in Australian politics there’s before Barton and after Barton;
in Australian politics there’s even before Bandt and after Bandt;
in Australian politics there’s before Slipper and after Slipper; and
in Australian politics there’s before-Gillard and—deis volentibus, fiat mox—after Gillard.
Oh, it seems we can.


UPDATE (26 May):  I added Jack Lang, an interesting and influential cove, to the list (at the succinct suggestion of Mark Bolton in comments).

2 comments:

Mark Bolton said...

Jack Lang.

Canberra lawyer said...

Yes, we definitely can. This is Australian politics in a nutshell.