By Months: Valdo Randpere
Total Months: 17
Fully Profiled: 17
10.2025
2 Speeches
There is no direct confrontation; a structural question regarding economic concentration is posed to the Tallinn mayoral candidate. The criticism is aimed at economic disproportionality, not at a personal or political party opponent.
09.2025
2 Speeches
While no direct opponent is criticized, reference is made to the Bank of Estonia’s historical reluctance to transfer profits to the state budget, describing this approach as "tight-fisted." The criticism is aimed specifically at a financial policy practice that has historically ignored the needs of the state budget.
06.2025
14 Speeches
The primary opposition is aimed at the initiators of the national anti-fraud action plan, who are criticized for ideological posturing and creating unnecessary bureaucracy. The criticism is intense and fundamental, stressing that the state should not be a babysitter or compensate everyone for their losses. The opposition rejects the notion that the state ignores fraud; rather, it challenges the format of the action plan itself.
05.2025
4 Speeches
The confrontation is directed at colleagues who introduce factual inaccuracies regarding the draft legislation or approach the subject matter too ideologically. Rain Epler is being criticized for misinterpreting the content of the convention, and Helle-Moonika for her tendency to view everything through a "worldview prism." The criticism aims to correct these misunderstandings and emphasizes that the creation of law should not be based on individual cases.
04.2025
5 Speeches
The main opponents are the Social Democrats, who are criticized for fearmongering against the changes to labor law and for painting unrealistic threats by drawing comparisons to the events of 2012. General criticism is also directed at those colleagues who speak off-topic (mentioning VAT, excise duties, or demography) during the discussion of the strategy document. One opponent (Poolamets) is dismissed as being unsuitable for debate.
03.2025
5 Speeches
The confrontation is directed at the Helme family (Martin, Mart, and Helle-Moonika Helme). The criticism focuses on both procedural violations (such as Martin Helme’s absence from committees) and factual inaccuracy and the distortion of history (referring to Mart Helme’s claims about Kaja Kallas). These attacks are intense and clearly aimed at discrediting the opponents’ credibility.
02.2025
4 Speeches
The criticism is primarily directed at procedural inefficiency, faulting the opposition for wasting the day on a failed no-confidence vote against the prime minister. He/She indirectly mentions that more substantive work could have been undertaken, such as debating a draft bill.
01.2025
2 Speeches
The main opponent is the Centre Party, which is criticized for constant complaining ("whining") and ignoring historical responsibility. The criticism is intense and focuses on the opponents' behavior, not just their policies, questioning whether their "period of reasonableness and conciliation is over." The opponents' previous actions (facilitating the departure from the coalition) are used to justify their current situation.
11.2024
4 Speeches
The main opponents are the Center Party (Keskerakond) and EKRE, who are sharply criticized for downplaying security issues and for their opposition to Rail Baltic. The Center Party is accused of lacking sincerity on matters of corruption and security, while EKRE is directly accused of spreading false claims (specifically regarding conscription). The opponents are viewed as people merely seeking another opportunity to express their distaste for RB.
10.2024
1 Speeches
The primary criticism is aimed at Kalle, whose draft bill has been branded a legal mess, incompetent, and absurd. Lauri Laats is being criticized for hypocrisy regarding his demand that people be present in the chamber, since he himself was absent during the debate. The criticism is intense and includes both political and personal remarks directed at the opponents.
09.2024
1 Speeches
Fierce opposition is aimed at "Hea Toomas" and the institutional bodies responsible for the decision (the session department or the board of directors). The criticism is strictly procedural and legal, accusing them of rendering an incorrect decision and granting legal authority to mere commentary. The speaker refers to the disagreement as a "pointless squabble" and resolutely demands that the error be rectified.
06.2024
1 Speeches
The main criticism is directed at Andrei Korobeinik, and it is both personal and historical. The speaker expresses strong regret over inviting Korobeinik into politics, which indicates deep dissatisfaction with his actions or his presence.
05.2024
4 Speeches
The criticism is primarily aimed at institutions and procedures, particularly the actions of the Special Committee for State Budget Control, which is busy with "fluff and trivialities" instead of performing its legally mandated duties. He/She also criticizes the National Heritage Board as a force that hinders development by protecting worthless objects. Furthermore, he/she opposes the media practice of labeling people as guilty before a court ruling takes effect.
04.2024
9 Speeches
Strong opposition is directed at the EKRE faction, particularly Kert Kingo, criticizing their draft legislation as political interference in the work of the Prosecutor's Office. The criticism is primarily procedural (concerning the withdrawal of proposed amendments and incompetence) and institutional, reminding them of their responsibility in the appointment of Andres Parmas as Prosecutor General. He/She accuses the opposition of needlessly wasting time.
03.2024
2 Speeches
Opponents are being sharply criticized for labeling the abolition of the tax hump as "class struggle," which is deemed unfair rhetoric. The speaker counters this by arguing that the opposing side's own bill (reducing VAT on foodstuffs) also primarily serves the interests of the wealthy. The opponent is then proposed to drop their own bill and instead support the abolition of the tax hump, suggesting a genuine desire to persuade the opposition rather than merely criticize them.
02.2024
16 Speeches
The speaker launches a sharp attack on EKRE (Martin Helme, Henn Põlluaas) and Isamaa (Urmas Reinsalu, Jaanus Karilaid). The criticism is aimed both at political hypocrisy (Põlluaas’s bill banning certain articles of clothing) and past failures (Helme’s botched pension reform, Isamaa’s role in taxes shifting to Latvia). He criticizes the opponents’ bills for their lack of substance and for being introduced purely for the purpose of obstruction, thereby calling their credibility into question.
01.2024
13 Speeches
The main criticism is directed at EKRE and Varro Vooglaid, who are accused of killing substantive draft legislation with "horrible political sloganeering" and employing obstructionist tactics. The text sharply criticizes claims that Estonia is an "oriental dictatorship" or that the prosecutor's office operates without oversight. It also raises pointed questions for the coalition partner (Eesti 200) regarding the shaky performance of the Minister of Education.