By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Clearly oppositional; highly critical of the coalition’s energy policy, claiming that decisions are made behind closed doors and through rushed procedures. It demands a democratic debate in the Riigikogu and accountability, including the minister’s resignation.

Heightened conflict with the official ownership policy and the regulations governing dividend payouts in state-owned enterprises; criticism primarily aimed at the unfair balance between policy (as economic activity) and consumer prices. Intensive, direct, and demanding: it seeks specific explanations and brings the arguments into the spotlight, but may not articulate a concrete or intuitive compromise.

A clearly oppositional stance regarding the constitutional amendments; critical of the coalition and the forces supporting it. The messages focus on defending democracy, the rule of law, and security, as well as exposing the conflict between the amendment procedure and fundamental principles; no compromise is evident, and the need for transparency is emphasized.

All criticisms are aimed at the government's proposed legal amendments and the approach that facilitates registry entries. He/She stresses that this poses a danger to the rule of law and dismisses the alleged "false" narratives as untrue, prioritizing the application of existing law and the protection of rights, rather than the adoption of amendments. The opposition is directed at the politician/policy, not the individuals.

The opposition leveled criticism at the coalition's decision-making process and its rushed legislative efforts. They stress that the crisis has not been handled with sufficient transparency, and there is a need for a public debate and discussion involving the whole of society.

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.

The primary opposing force is the current government/coalition, which is being accused of failing to provide funding, breaking promises, and obstructing the advancement of the current reform. The intensity is high because the criticism centers on the neglect of decision-making and financing, and the absence of effective outcomes.

A distinctly oppositional stance toward the government is maintained: the economic policy is criticized, concerns are raised regarding the well-being of ordinary families, and the government is accused of indifference toward the populace. Furthermore, Eesti 200 is attacked as members of the opposition, with allegations of fraud and misleading the electorate; the overall tone is sharply critical and antagonistic.

Intense criticism leveled at the government's tax policy; it criticizes both the current and previous administrations for the burdens resulting from their tax policies, emphasizing the necessity of change and the need to take responsibility.

A strong oppositional stance taken against the specific foreign minister and their party; the criticism focuses on the minister’s conduct and the party’s background, emphasizing the conflict regarding established protocol and ethics.

Clearly antagonistic towards the government and the Reform Party coalition: the criticism centers on taxation, the impact of economic policy on ordinary citizens, and budget transparency. It highlights that the government has managed the economy "criminally" and proposes, as an alternative, the taxation of banks' excess profits; it stresses the need to protect vulnerable groups and promises changes to the tax system should there be a potential change in power.