> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Ideas That Test My Strength - URL: https://goodoil.news/ideas-that-test-my-strength/ - Published: 2026-09-20T21:00:02.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-20T21:00:01.000Z - Description: A bit of honesty would be preferable to trying to hoodwink the electorate with unworkable policies. You might fool some of the people some of the time but you won’t fool all of the people all of the time. - Author: JC - Tags: NZ Politics, Business, Economy I’m talking about the latest collection of bird-brained ideas concerning supermarkets jumping out at us from political parties prior to the election. We are all only too well aware that the cost of living is the number one election issue. However, the ideas for solving the problem and help lower grocery prices speak more of desperation than reality. I realise there are people in voter land that could be sucked in with the rhetoric on display. But honestly, listening to what the politicians have on offer to solve the problem reveals they’re not very sharp either. If any of them were honest, they would explain that the supermarket problem is borne out of a simple mathematical equation. You divide the number of supermarkets by the population. The most glaring example of why the problem is unsolvable comes from the United Kingdom. With a population close to 70 million they have only FOUR supermarket chains. That equates to one chain per 17.5 million people. With two supermarket chains we have one chain per 2.5 million. A third player in the market would mean one chain per approximately 1.6 million. As Mike Hosking succinctly put it – “We don’t have many people”. Can anyone tell me how that is a viable business model. It obviously is not because no overseas entity has shown interest in coming here. They have no doubt done the maths. So that leaves us with only the current domestic players to work with to try and solve what is an unsolvable problem. The ideas produced so far resemble the result of brain explosions, knowing the chances of them happening are next to zero. If you’re going to the electorate with an idea then at the very least it has to look believable. So far none are. One is communistic in nature, another is blatantly interfering in an established business and the third is nothing short of a joke. Of the three, National’s, stolen from NZ First according to Winston Peters, looks to have the most chance of perhaps coming to fruition, but Willis herself admits it is full of maybes from the start and from other comments she has made it looks pretty much a non-starter. In fact, one is left somewhat confused. According to Willis the current owners will retain their businesses and their brands. So what changes? They are still basically as they were before but somehow expected to fight against each other to achieve National’s dream of lowering prices. As far as I can see, each city, town or community will remain unchanged in terms of the number of supermarkets, with Woolworths being the main or sole competitor. Most of New Zealand’s towns will still likely have only one of each so the so-called ‘competition’ remains as it was. I can’t see this policy lowering prices at all. Am I missing something here? You’re going to bust up private family-owned-and-run businesses to try and achieve the impossible dream. The next time National tells you they’re business friendly, feel free to laugh your head off. This is, once again, National employing its liberal approach to solving a problem. I would have talked to the Warehouse, which already has a small grocery section in their stores. My suggestion would be for them to expand and become the third major player. I would have offered some government assistance at the start if needed. Short of an overseas operation coming here, expanding the Warehouse is the nearest you’ll get to a new player in the market. It is certainly preferable to National’s current policy offered in what can only be described as desperation. This sort of nonsense does nothing to increase the party’s credibility with voters. The Greens’ idea of government run supermarkets is no surprise. What the taxpayers would save from shopping in these supermarkets would be more than cancelled out by the taxes people would have to fork out to pay for the cost of running them. Labour are coming at the problem from a slightly different angle. They are going to keep the businesses intact but stop them price gouging. This policy was launched in a store with sincerity and with a straight face. They will have the Commerce Commission oversee this particular piece of comedic brilliance. By the time the commission gets to determine the possibility of price gouging on a product, it will be time for the next, and the next and the next. On and on it will go with the supermarkets always one step ahead of the commission. It risks becoming a farce. The end result of these election policy announcements, from a voters’ point of view, is one of despair. Is there no one in that den of iniquity that possesses an original idea? Can they not do a simple maths equation to alert them to the fact we simply don’t have enough people living in this country for a third chain to be viable? Mike Hosking calls the ideas “fanciful”. A bit of honesty would be preferable to trying to hoodwink the electorate with unworkable policies. Give me strength. You might fool some of the people some of the time but you won’t fool all of the people all of the time.