By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The rhetorical style is combative and critical, employing strong language such as "hocus pocus" and "a deceitful budget." The speech relies heavily on logical arguments and detailed budgetary figures (a billion versus 25 million) to highlight the contradictions between the government's words and its actions. The criticism culminates in a theatrical gesture: presenting the Prime Minister with a microscope to underscore just how minuscule the cuts are.

The rhetorical style is combative, urgent, and sharply critical, accusing the government of irresponsibility and hypocrisy. Logical arguments are employed, backed by specific figures and analytical assessments, to underscore the low substantive quality of the government's decisions. Figurative expressions are used (e.g., "the rooster was in the Garden of Gethsemane" and "stone upon stone"), along with rhetorical questions aimed at exposing the government's broken promises.

The tone is predominantly combative and insistent, especially when addressing the prime minister, who is accused of providing "the best non-answer of the year." The style is data-driven and logical when presenting economic criticism, but it becomes procedural and slightly personal (a reference to the "Kaja Kallas complex") due to the lack of a response.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and demanding, stressing the necessity of substantive and relevant answers. It employs logical arguments, drawing on economic experts' assessments and statistics, yet expresses its positions very resolutely ("the government's main narrative is false"). It attempts to shift the Prime Minister's focus to the present, criticizing her for dwelling on the past ("to abandon the Kaja Kallas complex").

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and urgent, emphasizing the waste of time and the inadequacy of political will. The speaker utilizes extensive factual data and references to official documents, sharply diagnosing the situation (e.g., "chaos in a political sense" and a "cry for help"). The appeals are primarily logical, focusing on the failure to address a critical necessity.