Session Profile: Martin Helme
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
2024-11-13
Political Position
The political position is strongly oppositional, focusing its criticism on the government’s economic policy (tax hikes, inflation, and impoverishment) and the decay of the democratic process. The speaker frames the situation as a "corporatocracy coup" carried out by the liberal regime, leading to the destruction of Estonia, emphasizing that parliamentarism and democracy no longer function in the country. The main objective is to stand up for the voters and demonstrate that the opposition has not surrendered.
10 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the methodology used for calculating the state budget, taxation, and inflation, utilizing specific data (e.g., the price of electricity in 2019 was 3.4 cents/kWh and price increases for various commodity groups, such as electricity at 187% and food at 48.7%). He/She emphasizes his/her previous experience as Minister of Finance and the history of implementing performance-based budgeting, while correcting historical facts presented by the government.
10 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and dramatic, employing powerful metaphors (such as calling the budget "filth" or "sludge") and political epithets ("corporatocracy's coup d'état," "simulation of democracy"). The speaker is direct, presenting logical arguments backed by data, yet heavily emphasizes the emotional and moral condemnation of the government’s actions. He actively engages in refuting false claims and "fake news."
10 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active during the plenary session's state budget debate, delivering lengthy and substantive critical speeches, followed later by brief procedural requests for voting on proposed amendments. This pattern indicates a concentration on the debates occurring in the Riigikogu chamber and on legislative scrutiny.
10 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the Reform Party and the liberal regime, who stand accused of destroying the Estonian economy and abolishing parliamentarism. The criticism is intense, focusing both on the political substance (tax hikes, a corrupt budget) and procedural violations (the subsequent reallocation of the budget, disregarding the rules of procedure). The speaker rejects compromise, proposing that the budget either be rejected or the proceedings terminated.
10 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
No desire for cooperation is expressed; the style is confrontational, focusing on defending the opposition's stance against the steamrolling of the government's agenda. The speaker emphasizes that the opposition's participation in the work of the Riigikogu only contributes to the coalition's pretense that democracy is actually functioning.
10 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on national macroeconomic and fiscal issues (inflation, budget, competitiveness) and international climate agreements (the Paris Climate Agreement, Fit for 55). Specific regional or local topics are absent.
10 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
His economic views are strongly fiscally conservative: he advocates for a balanced budget (referencing the 2019 and 2020 budgets) and opposes tax hikes. He argues that the government’s policies will lead to an economic recession, the destruction of competitiveness, and the impoverishment of the population, because inflation is outpacing wage and pension increases.
10 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Among the social issues, the question of LGBTQ+ funding was specifically raised. The speaker proposed removing 3 million euros from the budget allocated for LGTBT+QQ support, calling this a "very important ideological proposal."
10 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on challenging and amending the state budget process. The speaker is a strong opponent of the draft budget, proposing its rejection or the termination of the proceedings. He also submits specific amendments, including proposals to cut funding for social issues.
10 Speeches Analyzed