By Plenary Sessions: Aleksei Jevgrafov

The rhetorical style is direct and question-oriented, often employing strong emotional expressions (e.g., "they rob ordinary people"). The tone is critical of the government and emphasizes social injustice. The speaker frequently addresses colleagues by name, while simultaneously maintaining formal parliamentary language.

The rhetorical style is critical, questioning, and anxious, utilizing juxtaposing quotes from government members to underscore the coalition's instability and internal contradictions. It employs both logical argumentation (concerning budget discrepancies) and emotional appeal, highlighting a situation where essential workers cannot guarantee their own safety, labeling this a national disgrace.

The style is formal and respectful (e.g., "Thank you, Chair!" or "Esteemed Minister!"), but the content is critical and analytical. A direct question format is employed to draw attention to a potential weakness in the draft legislation, focusing on logical risk assessment.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet critical and data-driven. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and statistics to underscore the injustice of the situation and the excessive profitability of the banking sector. It concludes with direct, challenging questions that demand the presenter take a firm stance on the solidarity tax and the fairness of the overall situation.

The style is confrontational and direct, posing pointed questions to the minister regarding accountability and the legal basis. The speaker relies on logical appeal, highlighting contradictions between the minister’s claims and information reported in the media. The tone is formal yet critical, demanding that responsibility be taken for the issues that have arisen.

The rhetorical style is formal and courteous, repeatedly employing addresses such as "esteemed Minister/Jaak/Hendrik Johannes." The speaker adopts a critical and questioning approach, specifically highlighting a procedural deficiency (the absence of meetings) and deeming one particular viewpoint "completely incomprehensible."