By Months: Jaanus Karilaid

The political stance is strongly oppositional, centering on the government's economic failures, specifically highlighting the 5% budget deficit and the €1.35 billion infrastructure shortfall. Criticism is also aimed at the prime minister's interference in local politics (Tallinn, Tartu) and their inability to resolve national crises. The focus is results-oriented, demanding concrete action plans to maintain the economic environment and competitiveness.

The political stance is strongly anti-government, focusing on the government's incompetence and lack of vision in managing the economy, finance, healthcare, and energy policy. The speaker is demanding the government's resignation or a serious cabinet overhaul, citing the low support for the Reform Party and Eesti 200, as well as the debacle of the local elections. The framing is clearly performance-driven, emphasizing the lack of professionalism in state governance.

The political position focuses heavily on regional inequality and improving economic competitiveness outside Harju County. The most acute problem is the energy deficit in Lääne County, which is hindering industrial development. The stance is that the only way to change the situation and fulfill election promises is to exert political pressure and ask questions. The focus is strongly results-oriented and requires action.

The speaker focuses intensely on the necessity of regional policy and reducing regional disparities, criticizing the government's current policy for its ineffectiveness. Furthermore, he/she adopts a very firm, value-driven position in support of severing legal and administrative ties with the Moscow Patriarchate, viewing this as a critical issue of national security and societal integrity.

The speaker is in fierce opposition to the Reform Party government, accusing them of neglecting socio-economic problems and poor governance, which has resulted in rising crime rates and a decline in the economy's competitiveness. The key priorities outlined are revitalizing the regional economy (focusing on energy capacity and road infrastructure debt) and improving the quality of the legal system and public administration from the citizen's perspective. The political framework is explicitly results-oriented, highlighting the government's failure to resolve long-standing issues.

The political stance is strongly focused on ensuring national security and repelling the influence of a hostile foreign state, firmly supporting the draft legislation aimed at the administrative separation of the Orthodox Church from the Moscow Patriarchate. This position is value-based, emphasizing Estonian independence, national interests, and the restoration of historical justice. The speaker considers the adoption of this bill to be a historic and essential step.

The political focus is on strengthening national security and removing the Kremlin's hybrid influence from the leadership of the Estonian Orthodox Church. This position is strongly value-based, emphasizing the need to take into account geopolitical threats, the history of Soviet occupation, and the unfriendly strategic goals of the Eastern state. Support is given to amending the constitution and to bills that improve the security situation, viewing the Moscow Patriarchate as an arsenal of Russia's hybrid weapons.

The political focus is split between national identity and security, and sharp criticism directed at the government's economic and energy policies. The speaker strongly supports restricting voting rights solely to Estonian citizens, viewing citizenship as a privilege that necessitates familiarity with the Estonian language and mindset. Furthermore, he criticizes the prime minister for inheriting "disarray" and "inadequate policy" in the energy sector, demanding immediate improvements.

The political discourse heavily emphasizes strong criticism regarding the government's inaction and the political leadership crisis, particularly concerning national defense (drone capabilities, air defense, shelters) and infrastructure (the Rohuküla railway). The speaker questions the coalition's priorities, accusing them of prioritizing political dogma (the tax hump) over genuine needs. The stance is strongly confrontational and focuses on the effectiveness of the government's performance.