By Months: Vladimir Arhipov

Consistently criticizes the government and its tax policy, accusing them of turning against the people. Claims the government has not passed "even a single decent law" and calls the situation "embarrassing." Employs sharp rhetoric, calling the security tax a "PR stunt" and accusing the government of labeling. He/She strongly opposes the economic policy of the Reform Party.

It consistently criticizes the governing coalition, accusing it of disregarding the interests of the people and setting incorrect priorities. The criticism is particularly sharp regarding the restriction of voting rights, which it labels an attempt to weaken the Centre Party. It argues that the government fails to take citizens' opinions into account and conducts merely formal consultations without considering the results.

Takes a critical stance on the government's policy, particularly regarding the reduction of benefits for pensioners. Criticizes the government for withdrawing operating cost support from pensioners' associations. Expresses concern about the safety of women in the Riigikogu (Parliament), citing potential instances of humiliation.

Criticizes the government's austerity policy, particularly regarding education and the social sector, labeling it as "targeting the poorest and most vulnerable." Concern was also voiced regarding the bureaucratic approach to education reform, where classifications or categories seem to take precedence over actual competence. The decision to close the Consulate General in New York was criticized as an incomprehensible cost-cutting measure. However, the criticism is not personal; it focuses solely on the policy measures and their resulting consequences.

The speaker adopted a clear opposition stance against both the current and previous governments, accusing them of failing to deliver on promises and engaging in unfair tax practices. He specifically criticized ministers in the current government who "talked a big game" about returning money but failed to follow through. The criticism was primarily policy-focused, not personal, concentrating on specific decisions and their consequences.