when the recent disappointing gdp figures came out george osborne said that he would give a 110% of his energy to solving the economic crisis. we may not have believed him, but we all knew what he meant.
the ‘giving 110%’ or ‘gave 110%’ is one of the sports clichés that normally goes with losing. the coach will use it to say how proud he is, and how he can’t ask for more because they gave 110%. or it will be used by the plucky underdog to show just how committed they are even though there is a large likelihood that they will be royally trounced.
like decimate – it has moved on from the correct meaning and has become something else entirely.
it wasn’t a good couple of days for mr. osborne as several people called from him to be replaced (william hague being the lead contender, and i am sure that vince cable is enjoying the discomfort of mr. osborne). a few even called him a work experience chancellor (though not on the ‘pay’ that the con/dems want to give those that they put on work experience).
to add to his woes martin lewis, the money expert (and he most know what he is talking about as he has sold his website for quite a lot of moolah) decided that he would also have a pop at mr. osborne for his innumeracy, stating that mr. osborne should know better than to say he was going to give 110%. someone tried to defend mr. osborne, using the defence i have outlined above, but mr. lewis was having none of that – saying that mr. osborne should be providing a role model for numeracy, especially considering how poor numeracy is supposed to be in the country.
mr. lewis has a point.
it may also be that he might have directed us to why the government’s plans and forecasts always have to be revised. perhaps, just perhaps, mr. osborne is indeed innumerate and has problems with simple calculations. that following on in the footsteps of the footballers he supports he has indeed done some of his sums using 110%, just because it sounds better.
just a possibility.