By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The style is direct and parliament-centric; first, a strong, comparative assessment of the candidate's work is presented. In the second speech, the tone is clarifying and procedural, focusing on establishing clarity ("so that no one gets confused afterwards").

The style is highly combative and confident, emphasizing the party's principled stance and success in steering the political arena. Strong emotional appeals and polarizing language are employed, labeling opponents' tactics as "peddling the Putinism narrative" and "hitting them with the Putinism cudgel." The speech concludes with a self-aggrandizing appeal: "you can thank us."

Combative, sharp, and forceful, often employing emotionally charged language and accusations (e.g., "corrupt misappropriation of funds," "destruction of the nation-state"). The style is accusatory, highlighting the opponents' manipulation, lies, and hypocrisy, particularly concerning tax policy and immigration. Rhetorical questions are used to establish the government's moral boundaries during the selection of ministers.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and skeptical, employing strong political labeling (e.g., "putinist") and irony. The speaker poses numerous rhetorical questions intended to cast doubt on the government's assertions regarding taxes and economic growth. The tone is emotional and blunt, aiming to morally discredit the opponent's actions.

The speaker employs a highly combative and accusatory rhetorical style, utilizing strong emotional appeals and dramatic metaphors, such as "the old aunt under the rose bush" and "the medical mafia." Intense terminology like "terror" and "totalitarianism" is deployed to underscore the scale of state power abuse. The style is predominantly narrative and emotionally charged, demanding the exposure of a conspiracy aimed at the public.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and urgent, utilizing strong terminology such as "bankruptcy," "corrupt clique," and "drivel." The speaker focuses on delegitimizing the government, accusing them of lying and lacking a plan, and emotionally appeals to the lack of public trust. Direct questions and exclamations ("You don't have a plan!") are used to emphasize the crisis situation.