By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Lukas

The criticism is aimed at those who previously objected to bringing nationwide topics down to the local level. Skepticism is also expressed towards those who consider the sentiment of stateless persons towards the Estonian state to be too friendly, arguing that this masks a potential security threat. It is emphasized that individuals with undeclared Russian citizenship pose the same threat as citizens of a declared aggressor state.

The opposition is aimed at the current government’s activities and the prime minister’s promises. Critical attention is also drawn to the work of the previous administration (Kaja Kallas) and the necessity of amending its policies. The criticism is policy- and performance-based, focusing specifically on taxation and the achievement of climate goals.

Direct opposition is not being voiced, but criticism is aimed at the government's dominant role in initiating legislation. The speaker is advocating for greater independence and initiative for the Riigikogu without government guidance.

The main opponent is the governing coalition, which is being accused of breaking promises (teachers' salaries) and devaluing culture. Criticism is also directed at the Finance Committee, which disregarded good proposals without providing any justification. Intense language is being used, accusing the government of "running under the bar of our own culture."

The main opponent is the government, which is being criticized for breaking previous salary promises and for the lack of a formal procedural decision regarding the financing of the career model. The criticism is sharp, calling into question the credibility of the government’s promises and demanding more vigorous action from the Minister of Education during budget negotiations.

The opposition is directed at the questioners who ideologically took the abortion debate beyond the substance of the draft bill, and at those "accusers" who criticize the economic impact of the tax exemption for land under one's home. The criticism targets the inaccuracy and ideological bias of the opposing sides' arguments.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government's policies, particularly regarding tax hikes and decisions to centralize regional policy. The criticism is policy-driven and intense, describing the government's actions as making life harder for people.

The criticism is aimed at the policies of the government and the Ministry of Education and Research, particularly concerning the reduction of funding for small schools and the shifting of goals. The speaker also criticizes a specific clause in the agreement between the education workers' union and the government, which could provide municipalities with an excuse to close schools. The resistance is based on policy and procedure, warning against creating false hopes regarding the preservation of the educational network.

The main adversaries are the government and the coalition, who face criticism for lacking political integrity and failing to deliver on their promises. The criticism targets both policy (the car tax, the school network) and procedure (the stalling of bureaucratic processes). While the Regional Minister is described on a human level as "hapless," the political situation surrounding him is, in the speaker's estimation, "extremely tough."

The main criticism is directed at the government as a whole, accusing other ministries of working against regional balance. The criticism is policy-based, focusing on centralization, the pricing policies of state-owned enterprises, and the content of the education agreement, which pressures local municipalities to close schools. The efforts of the Regional Minister are acknowledged, but the lack of support from their colleagues is criticized.