By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, cautionary, and at times emotionally charged, utilizing phrases such as "a blatant lie" and "complete chaos." It appeals both to logic, referencing legal analyses and protests by entrepreneurs, and to a sense of alarm regarding the violation of the principles of the rule of law. The discourse is formal, yet it contains strong political accusations directed at the government.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing strong judgments and negative descriptions (e.g., "utter chaos," "management mumbo-jumbo," "complete disarray"). There is a strong appeal to logic and facts, presenting detailed calculations intended to refute the government's claims of savings. The tone is urgent, emphasizing how the consequences of poor governance lead to a lower standard of living.

The tone is extremely combative, critical, and accusatory, using dramatic and emotional phrases such as "black tax Wednesday," "cynical politics," and "a laughing stock." It strongly appeals to the concerns of lower-income individuals, but also supports its claims with concrete data and statistical arguments. It employs irony and black humor, especially regarding government promises and the renaming of ministers, and accuses the government of being in a "lying crisis" and suffering from a "trust deficit."

The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, repeatedly demanding specific numerical answers from the minister and accusing him of dodging the issue. Both logical arguments (presenting data and analyses) and emotional language are employed to underscore the negative impact of the government's policy (for instance, using phrases like "black record" and "European champion"). The speaker attempts to pressure the opponent by requesting a specific metric response concerning the decline in income for both the average wage earner and the pensioner.

The style is very combative, critical, and cautionary, repeatedly emphasizing the danger of unconstitutionality ("I warn"). It appeals primarily to logic and legal arguments, citing the text of the draft bill and presenting hypothetical scenarios (e.g., a thief or an extortionist). The tone is formal, but at the same time passionately critical of the actions of the ruling coalition and directed at Mart Võrklaev.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing accusatory and ironic expressions such as "hypocritical rhetoric," "a complete farce," and "a pathetic fig leaf." The speaker relies on logical argumentation, presenting lengthy lists of the government's negative actions, ranging from cuts to family benefits to the teachers' strike. The tone is formal yet emotionally charged, highlighting the stress and lack of security experienced by families with children.

The style is predominantly combative, critical, and urgent, often employing sharp and condemnatory terms such as "bungling," "cynical," "mismanagement," and "deceitful politics." Both logical arguments (budget data and recession statistics) and emotional appeals (deterioration of livelihoods, erosion of trust) are presented. The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions and cites public opinion polls.