Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
2025-02-18
Political Position
It emphasizes the opposition to the government and the Reform Party; is critical of the government's income tax policy concerning banks and shows a preference for balanced taxation, utilizing comparisons and irony as rhetorical devices. It stresses that the tax system should be fairer and more systematic for the general public, and criticizes the government's focus on various sectors. The critique is policy-driven, rather than relying on personal confrontation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
Demonstrates knowledge of taxation and tax policy (advance corporate income tax for banks, relatively 18% compared to 24% for personal taxes) and utilizes economic comparisons. References competition between economic sectors (comparison of banks and offshore wind farms) and the interpretation of economic policy based on fixed meanings. The main topics are taxation and national economic policy, viewed through the criticism of government policy.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
A contentious, combative tone; employing rhetorical questions and sarcasm, using metaphors such as “money down the drain” and “the new Nokia.” A blend of emotional weight and logical argumentation; the style is often uncompromising and provocative, yet it retains a degree of humor and illustrative clarity. Rhetorical devices are utilized throughout the texts to grab attention and underscore the criticism.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Appears before the plenary session of the Riigikogu; delivers two speeches during the same day, the first of which is criticism related to economic policy, and the second describes the provisions of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and the nuances of the proceedings. The texts demonstrate direct participation in the plenary sessions and utilize both political criticism and procedural explanation. Limited information only allows for a general picture of regular appearances throughout a single day.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
Strongly oppositional: criticizing the government and the Reform Party regarding the tax burden on banks and general economic policy. The style is intense and argumentative; the criticism centers on the unfair treatment of banks and the desire for an alternative, more transparent approach to government policy. The absence of any pursuit of compromise was not directly highlighted.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
There is insufficient data regarding any cooperative or conciliatory efforts; the texts focus on criticism and procedural debate, with no clear indication of involvement from cooperation or coalition partners. The available data does not allow us to conclude that there is any readiness for cooperation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The discussion is focused at the national/parliamentary level; there are no references to regional projects or regional interests. The dominant focus is on nationwide economic policy and parliamentary procedure.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The focus of economic policy centers on criticizing the tax burden placed on banks and the need for balanced taxation. It highlights the injustice inherent in favoring banks and notes that political parties and the government, in their roles, may be inclined toward "throwing money away" style strategies. It demonstrates a desire to avoid unequal treatment in economic policy, advocating for clearer, more uniform taxation, and links this approach to achieving broader growth potential. It points out that the real priority should be investing funds effectively, rather than funding the privileges of favorable sectors.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
There is insufficient data regarding social topics (abortion, LGBTQ+, immigration, guns, education, or similar issues); social viewpoints are not clearly presented in the texts.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
Stresses the significance of Section 70 of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act and the right to a rebuttal; raises debate on how a member, even when mentioned by name, can be influenced via the right to reply. There is an absence of specifically highlighted legislative initiatives or positions (support for/opposition to) regarding draft legislation; the focus remains on procedural aspects.
2 Speeches Analyzed