By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The political position is firmly against Draft Bill 437 (the amendment to the Land Tax Act), stressing that the state is shifting the financial burden onto local governments and 520,000 landowners. This stance is based both on procedure (the absence of VTK) and core values, drawing attention to the negative effects on food security and private property. The address concludes with a motion to reject the bill at the first reading.

The political stance is heavily focused on national security and the effectiveness of crisis management. The speaker criticizes the government's handling of the buoy theft that took place on the Narva River and demands accountability for the failure of the EE-alarm system during the Uikala landfill fire. This position is sharply critical and results-oriented, calling on the government to take more decisive action and accept responsibility.

The political stance is strongly aimed at protecting the incomes of pensioners and opposing any changes to the taxation of old-age pensions. The speaker calls into question the objectives of the income tax reform and criticizes the government's failure to provide answers to specific questions. There is an alarming tone regarding how pensioners will manage their livelihoods under conditions of reduced income.

The political position is strongly opposed to the government’s Green Transition and Climate-Resilient Economy Act, viewing it as an obligation and a restriction rather than an opportunity. The speaker sharply criticizes the encroachment upon private property in forestry and the neglect of infrastructure (road construction) within the development strategy. The stance is highly critical and focuses on the practical and financial shortcomings of the policy.

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's economic policy, focusing on rising unemployment (7.8%) and budget cuts affecting local municipalities. The criticism is data-driven, highlighting the contradictions between the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and the actual figures. Furthermore, the issue of a conflict of interest is being raised concerning the connections between the ministry and the company (Bolt).

The political focus is on the details of implementing education and childcare policy, particularly concerning the accessibility and quality of services. The speaker moderately opposes sections of the draft legislation that create inequality for rural residents when it comes to securing kindergarten places. Strong skepticism is also voiced regarding the practical feasibility of new technical requirements (such as floor temperature), thereby calling the policy's viability into question.

The political focus is centered on internal security and public order, highlighting the protection of the elderly from widespread telephone scams. The speaker considers these scams a far greater security threat than the narrow subject of investigation for which a response was expected. This position is highly critical of the respondent's actions, given that this significant threat has completely fallen outside the scope of observation.

The political stance is strongly oppositional, centered on criticizing the actions and accountability of the Minister of Education as part of a motion of no confidence. Key issues include the consequences of the school network reform (specifically opposing the closure of gymnasiums/secondary schools) and the state's inadequate financial support for local municipalities transitioning to Estonian-language instruction. The criticism targets the minister's overall performance and political management.

The political stance is fiercely oppositional, criticizing the government’s “steamroller” policy and the cumulative impact of tax hikes (including the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, VAT, excises, and the car tax). The primary focus is on government incompetence and procedural violations, particularly the lack of a formal development intention or preparatory analysis for crucial legislative drafts. The speaker claims that the tax is purely designed to fill the state budget, not to improve public health, thus casting doubt on the government's stated objectives.