Session Profile: Andrei Korobeinik
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
2024-09-25
Political Position
The political position is one of strong opposition to the government's fiscal policy, focusing specifically on social injustice. The speaker opposes tax hikes designed to favor the wealthy, while simultaneously taking money from social benefit recipients, the unemployed, and pensioners. The policy framing is values-based, emphasizing the government's inability to tackle the budget deficit and record inflation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates authority in the field of budget and tax policy, detailing the taxation of social benefits (subsistence allowance, unemployment benefit) and pensions with a national defense tax starting from the very first euro. Specific ratios (a 1:9 ratio of cuts to tax revenue) and financial indicators (half a billion per year) are utilized, which points to strong economic competence. Furthermore, knowledge of legislative procedures (the lack of debate in the Finance Committee) is highlighted.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing emotional appeals to highlight social injustice and the government's cynicism. Figurative language is utilized—such as "steamrolling over" and "callously stripping away"—alongside sarcasm ("as good Annely pointed out") to critique the coalition's procedures and motives. The tone is appropriate for a formal session, yet the content is polemical and accusatory.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active during plenary sessions, engaging in detailed legislative debates and immediately offering clarifications or objections to the remarks made by other colleagues. This pattern of activity includes critical participation in matters concerning the Finance Committee. Data regarding other activity patterns is unavailable.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the Reform Party (the primary focus of criticism), the Social Democrats, and Eesti 200, who together form the governing coalition. The criticism is intense, centering on both procedural violations (the absence of debate) and political injustice (the favoring of the wealthy). The speaker notes that the coalition leader (Kristen Michal) had ruled out compromises prior to the election.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The current style of engagement in this context is confrontational and uncompromising toward the government. A positive reference is made to the Center Party’s previous actions regarding the increase of the subsistence benefit, which suggests a willingness to cooperate with forces that share similar social priorities. There is no mention of current cooperation with the ruling coalition.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is exclusively on the national level, dealing with nationwide tax increases (the national defense tax), social benefits, and the state budget deficit. Regional or local issues are not represented in the speeches.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are strongly socially focused, opposing regressive taxation that impacts low-wage earners and social benefit recipients (taxation from the first euro). The government's fiscal irresponsibility is criticized, which has led to a budget deficit and record inflation. The speaker views the goal of the tax increases as distributing money to the wealthy.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social theme is social welfare and the protection of subsistence benefits. The speaker emphasizes that the purchasing power of the subsistence benefit has decreased due to inflation, and opposes cutting funds specifically from these most vulnerable groups. The social focus is on economic security.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on opposing the funding mechanism of a specific bill (which delays the salary increase for members of the Riigikogu). The speaker is a strong opponent of the taxation and cutting of social benefits that are tied to the implementation of this bill.
2 Speeches Analyzed