By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The speaker's style is predominantly confrontational and ironic, exemplified by a joke about the Finnish e-elections and the Reform Party’s victory. They employ emotional appeals (child benefits) and contrast them sharply with the interests of the coalition (more expensive cars). The focus is placed on demanding concrete actions instead of empty rhetoric, urging listeners to "take the bull by the horns."

The style is formal and directly questioning, addressing the minister respectfully ("Dear Minister!"). A logical appeal is used, referencing generally accepted norms of politeness and expectations that should apply in telephone communication, in order to highlight the minister's potentially unethical conduct.

The rhetorical style is concerned and at times urgent, focusing on the difficulties faced by the populace and the government's inability to act. The speaker employs management principles ("even a bad decision is better than indecision") and poses guiding questions to underscore their position. The address is formal, directed toward the Vice-Chairman and the rapporteur.

The rhetorical style is urgent, accusatory, and confrontational, aimed particularly at the Prime Minister, who faces criticism week after week for evading questions. Logical argumentation is employed, detailing the specific financial problems confronting local governments (deficit budgets, closure of services) and posing sharp rhetorical questions to the government.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and accusatory, calling into question the Prime Minister's clarity and consistency. Emotional appeals are utilized (the lack of a sense of security, mass exodus) combined with concrete political examples. Finally, a direct, value-based question is posed to the government regarding the protection of families.

The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, addressing the minister through the deputy chair. A logical approach is employed, posing specific policy- and procedure-based questions to clarify the government's plans. The tone is assertive and focuses on facts and timelines.

The rhetorical style is critical, questioning, and forceful. The speaker employs logical arguments, highlighting the lack of foresight in the positions taken by the coalition and the ministry. They pose sharp questions to expose whether the rejection of the draft legislation was based on merit or simply because it originated with the opposition.

The style is largely critical and demanding, particularly regarding rural areas, where the tone is concerned and highlights the absence of positive solutions. The first speech employs an emotional appeal, drawing attention to the difficult circumstances faced by people in the countryside. The second speech adopts a formal, detail-oriented style, aimed at obtaining clarification regarding the substance of the commission's discussion.