By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The opposition: critical of the coalition's policy and its budgetary practices; attacks are directed at the procedure, transparency, and the correctness of the figures; does not want an uncompromising situation, but better transparency.

Specific adversaries are not named; there is criticism regarding the current system's lack of transparency and emphasizes the need for changes. In terms of attitude, it takes the position that financial matters must be discussed and made visible, not kept secret.

As a core enterprise, there is strong opposition to the coalition’s planned bill: the change to the state secretary’s education requirements, the content of the draft law on noise, and the plan for a security tax. It defends the rule of law and against the impartiality of institutions, using close criticism and emotional comparisons, arguing that such changes damage trust and promote political agendas. Powerful resistance is directed both at specific bills and at broader tax policy.

A clearly oppositional stance regarding the government; the focus of criticism is tax policy and the actions of the Centre Party government. It points out that the coalition has not been sufficiently solidarity and the proposed solutions damage those with lower incomes. It does not show a willingness to make major compromises with the government, but emphasizes alternative tax proposals and equality.

It criticizes the Riigikogu as an institution and its current lack of trust in the eyes of the people; the criticism is strong, directed at the institution as a whole, not at specific individuals or groups.

Opposes the government's tax policy, particularly its intentions to raise alcohol excise duties and broader taxes. The critical tone concerns primarily the projections regarding revenue and impact on purchasing power; criticizes the rationale behind the decisions and emphasizes the need to consider the realism of the projections. He insists that tax policy must keep the burden under control and should not increase the tax burden without clear evidence.

The position is directly oppositional to the government: criticism of the coalition’s and ministers’ actions; finds that economic and security issues are not receiving enough attention and demands clear answers and oversight.

A critical stance regarding tax increases and a demand that decisions be more thoroughly considered and involve business people; focuses on political opposition, not personal attacks. Represents a strong, politically-driven resistance, without ruling out compromise in context.