By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The opposition has taken a position against the land tax increase, stressing that it would harm small municipalities and their residents. They aim to reject the bill during its first reading and are presenting criticism regarding the state's overall approach.

Clearly critical and in opposition. It criticizes the coalition and the government over the timing of their tax changes and supplementary budget, and accuses their actions of being tactics aimed at deceiving voters. The accusations presented are strongly linked to issues of political opposition and responsibility, without offering ready-made proposals for alternative solutions.

The core conflict: a contradictory approach to the draft legislation; acknowledging the rationale behind the criticism and the inequality; emphasizing the protection of pensioners' situation and justice.

Critical of the government's approach to supporting people with disabilities and in the context of the car tax; claims that the existing need for support has become outdated, and that the government's measures may not cover new costs. Presents strong political criticism, using arguments regarding skewed financial and social policies.

The primary resistance is aimed at the coalition's plans and their rationale: the draft bills have been copied from directives and are ill-suited to Estonian circumstances; it is stressed that these measures will harm businesses and local governments and fail to offer the desired protection to the public. The intensity is high, and compromise is currently not a priority.

A clearly oppositional stance toward the government's economic policy; the criticism is rooted in the poor performance of the economy and the fiscal situation, demanding specific actions. Of significant importance is the adoption of the controversial proposal to abolish the tax hump, with the ensuing discussion emphasizing the need for a realistic impact assessment and better achievement of results.

Insufficient data.

The focus is on the objection to the Isamaa draft bill, noting its incompatibility with the Constitution. It is highlighted that voting procedures and participation may be inconsistent, and it is stressed that revoking the right to vote is not compatible with constitutional requirements. The intensity ranges from moderate to strong, depending on the context; there is no personal attack, but rather a principled criticism directed at the constitutionality of the legislative steps being taken.

The core opposition manifests itself through criticism of the coalition and government bills. The Centre Party faction is withholding support for the bill and is demanding a separate vote and an adjournment of proceedings. The criticisms focus on the substance of the draft legislation and the role of the committee (specifically, the bundling of amendments and the political nature of the committee's decision). Intense fighting and comprehensive resistance are the dominant tones.

A strong opposition stance regarding the government's draft legislation: primarily opposing the increase of taxes and fines, and criticizing the hike in prices for state services. The tone is intense and critical, labeling the measures as cynical/amoral and emphasizing the necessity of impact analyses. It focuses on criticizing the government's accountability and political objectives.

The primary opposing stance regarding the coalition and government procedures; accuses [them] of obstruction and violating constitutional principles; frequently calls for the protection of the opposition's rights and the equality of their mandate; remains reservedly critical concerning compromise.

Critical of the government and the minister’s policies: accuses them of avoiding responsibility and failing to fulfill their promises; stresses the necessity of faster, evidence-based solutions. Seeks to increase accountability and draw attention to the interests of schools and teachers.

The stance is fiercely oppositional to the government's tax policy, emphasizing the avoidance of burdens on businesses and citizens, and the crucial importance of adhering to EU requirements. Simultaneously, it condemns the use of the executive body to restrict the rights of the opposition and stresses the necessity of open dialogue and the benefits of cooperation.