The release of the Commerce Commission's draft findings on petrol pricing presented a rare moment of consensus in politics: that New Zealanders were being fleeced.
There were, however, many different opinions when it came to the question of who was doing the fleecing.
The commission's draft report noted thefuel industry was not as competitive as it could be, and advantaged big, existing players over smaller companies breaking into the market.
Commerce Commission chairwoman Anna Rawlings was asked if consumers were being fleeced but said that was not a word the commission would use.
"I can tell New Zealanders that we cannot stand by while they are facing the pressure at the pump and while they are being fleeced. We, as a Government, stand ready to act."
She went on to repeat the "ready to act" line six more times.
Any move to cut petrol prices will be a popular one, but most New Zealanders are aware they are being fleeced on two flanks.
The second flank is in Government taxes.
That was outside the Commerce Commission's remit, beyond setting out that of an average $2.20 cents a litre, 97 cents was in taxes.
Alas, when Ardern said she was "ready to act", she did not mean she was ready to fight them on the taxes.
She said the petrol companies' margins that had risen at a greater pace than taxes.
So in rode National Party leader Simon Bridges, dubbing Ardern the "fleecer-in-chief" for the imposition of a regional fuel tax in Auckland and increasing nationwide fuel taxes.
Petrol taxes are something of a plague on both houses, given National itself was not averse to plumping them up to suit its purposes.
But National clearly believes it can claim the high ground, given Labour banked National's increases and added more.
The backlash from those taxes are one reason why the Government called for the review into petrol pricing in the first place.
The people needed placating, and the Government wanted someone else to be the bad guy.
Big Petrol is an easy target.
Green Party MP Julie Ann Genter also waded, in, tweeting that she was sure New Zealanders would rather fork out more taxes to pay for "quality transport infrastructure" than boost petrol company profits.
Therein lies the point, but it rather depends on whether those paying the tax think they are getting that infrastructure.
It is a matter of opinion as to what constitutes "quality transport infrastructure".
Wellington motorists, for example, might have thought a second Mt Victoria tunnel qualified.
Mayoral candidate John Tamihere thinks a mega-Harbour Bridge does.
When push comes to shove, New Zealanders would probably rather pay less in both.
But the politics and blame-casting does not mean the review was a waste of time.
Nor should politics overshadow what happens after the commission delivers its final report and its recommendations for action in time for Christmas.
The practices of petrol companies have long been a sore point and regional disparities - particularly for those who live in regions such as Wellington and the South Island – needed some explanation.
For the consumers, any relief would be welcome.
The report and the Government's response so far have simply confirmed they were being ripped off - on two fronts.
