By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and insistent, employing strong negative metaphors such as "clowns," "clown show," "circus," and "gibberish divorced from reality." The speaker balances emotional appeals (hysterical shrieking) with concrete data and statistical analysis (debt figures, income deciles). The tone is formal, but the content is sharply condemnatory and ridicules the government's self-serving narrative.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, aggressive, and accusatory, employing sharp metaphors ("a drunken sailor in a brothel") and accusations of using "Soviet propaganda" methods. Although a significant amount of numerical data and logical arguments are presented, the tone remains emotionally charged, and the goal is the ridicule of the government's actions. It utilizes personal attacks and references to the immoral behavior of government members.

The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, employing strong language (e.g., "lied from this podium," "delirious," "embarrassing") and sarcasm. The focus is placed on highlighting the contradiction between the government's actions and its rhetoric, labeling the government's discourse as "dull propaganda" and "absolute nonsense." Contrast is utilized (bluster vs. helplessness), and opponents are accused of "waving the Kremlin card" and earning "blood money."

The style is highly combative, accusatory, and forceful. Strong emotional appeals are used ("the greatest security threat," "brings shame upon itself") to emphasize the negative nature of the actions taken by the government and parliament.

The tone is extremely combative, accusatory, and urgent, employing strong emotional appeals and judgments. The government's actions are labeled as "a terrible failure" and "a national and international disgrace," and the government's communication is referred to as "resounding hurrah-patriotism." The style is direct and demands concrete answers, focusing on the government's moral and operational failure instead of logic.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and demanding, employing strong language (e.g., "massive threat of corruption") and rhetorical questions. A slightly more informal tone is also used ("IQ higher than an earthworm") to underscore the criticism. A logical appeal is favored, blended with emotional prodding, to highlight the danger posed by government inaction.

The rhetorical style is extremely confrontational, aggressive, and full of personal attacks, employing strong and humiliating expressions (e.g., "witch, charlatan," "corrupt wretches," "uhhuu"). The speaker strongly appeals to the sense of justice and accuses opponents of arrogance and intolerance. Repetitive phrases and the recalling of hysterical reactions are utilized to emphasize the government's hypocrisy.

The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, employing sharp phrases such as "lying," "disorder," "shambles," and "bungling management." Irony and pop culture references ("Fawlty Towers") are utilized to underscore the futility and incompetence of the government's actions. The tone is often personally offensive ("You are a small and stupid person!") and demanding, stressing the necessity of taking responsibility.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, aggressive, and accusatory, relying on strong emotional appeals and repetitions ("a complete bluff," "a devastating failure"). The speaker levels direct accusations of lying and corruption, employing simple and blunt language. Sarcasm and rhetorical questions are used ("Are we playing dumb right now?"), and accountability is demanded.

The speaking style is predominantly combative, sharp, and accusatory, frequently employing emotional and strongly critical expressions ("disaster zone," "embarrassing," "classic thugs/connected types," "totalitarianism"). Emphasis is placed on logical appeal (referencing laws and internal regulations), but this is interwoven with moral accusations regarding the destruction of democracy and the breaking of rules. The speaker uses irony and rhetorical questions (e.g., "in the 'good grief' world").