By Plenary Sessions: Mart Helme

The readiness for cooperation is low. The speaker points to successful past collaboration in the EKREIKE government, which featured innovative plans. While there are theoretical calls to discuss alternative solutions (for instance, different VAT percentages), the coalition is accused of refusing to engage in discussion and simply voting down proposals in a blunt manner.

There is no willingness to cooperate; the style is purely confrontational and accusatory. The speaker protests and defends their own party and the Isamaa party against slanderous remarks, but active cooperation or compromise with other parties is not mentioned.

The speaker strongly emphasizes the urgent need for cross-ministerial and cross-party cooperation in guaranteeing public health, criticizing the government's current fragmented approach. Positive reference is made to earlier success stories, where collaboration (such as the launch of needle exchange points) resulted in HIV being brought under control.

There is no evidence of cooperation or willingness to compromise; the rhetoric is rather confrontational and critical of the system as a whole.

No data available.

Regarding higher education policy, [he/she/it] expresses a desire to find a "golden mean" with university representatives, which signals openness to substantive discussion. On economic issues, [he/she/it] seeks potential consensus among all parties represented in the Riigikogu concerning the taxation of foreign banking and the promotion of domestic capital. Overall, the style is rather confrontational, but [he/she/it] seeks support for specific national and economic objectives.

The speaker is acting as a harsh critic, demanding action and legislative initiatives from the government. There are no indications of a willingness to compromise or cooperate with coalition partners.

There is no data available. The rhetoric is purely critical and oppositional, with no indications of seeking compromises or cooperating with other political parties.