By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, employing strong language such as "bad blood" and "reckless scheme" to describe the government's actions. The appeals are a blend of logical argumentation (budget deficits) and emotional emphasis on public opposition (protests, signatures). The speaker calls the government's credibility into question.

The rhetorical style is provocative and sharp, employing rhetorical questions and hypothetical scenarios (such as a cabinet meeting) to underscore the sheer absurdity of the situation. The speaker attempts to emotionally highlight the gravity of the circumstances, contrasting massive figures with the stark reality of government budget deficits, using, for example, the expression "Are you kidding me!"

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and argumentative, especially towards members of the government, demanding that the session chairman call the prime minister to order. Historical parallels are used (the VAT increase, earlier local government allocations) to cast doubt on the credibility of the government's promises. The tone is predominantly logical and reasoned, but also includes personal comments regarding the opponents' behavior.

The style is serious and forceful, stressing the "critical nature" of the demographic situation. It uses statistical data and logical links between government policy and the falling birth rate for argumentation. It poses a large number of rhetorical questions to call into question the prime minister's stance and the government's intentions.

The rhetorical style is concerned and direct, utilizing concrete examples (letters from parents, the anonymous testimony of a school principal) to illustrate the government's inaction. The speaker poses sharp, yet fact-based questions, emphasizing the risk of the reform failing. The introduction includes mild sarcasm regarding the Prime Minister's absence.

The rhetorical style is concerned, skeptical, and emphasizes the urgency of the situation, labeling the teacher shortage as "Problem No. 1." Logical arguments and data are employed (e.g., the results of the Estonian Education Personnel Union survey), and skepticism is voiced regarding the successful, timely implementation of the reforms. While the Minister initially receives praise for their activity, the overall tone remains critical due to the lack of concrete answers.

The rhetorical style is critical and accusatory, labeling the government's actions as irresponsible and highlighting the struggles faced by ordinary people and small businesses. It employs both logical arguments (the revenue potential of the bank tax) and emotional appeals, contrasting the banks' excessive profits with the difficulties experienced by the public. The speaker uses simple yet impactful language, referencing, for instance, "peasant logic" when discussing the taxation of foodstuffs.