Session Profile: Helir-Valdor Seeder
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
2024-02-07
Political Position
The political stance is fiercely opposed to the government's tax increases, particularly the car tax, which he/she has dubbed "foolishness." He/She puts forward an alternative political proposal: abandon the plan to eliminate the tax bracket adjustment (the "tax hump") to prevent the introduction of new taxes. Furthermore, he/she stresses the necessity of improving the procedural efficiency of the Riigikogu's Q&A session (infotund) to guarantee ministers a more equitable response time.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding the working procedures of the Riigikogu and the rules governing the information hour, knowing the order and allocation principles for questions. They also possess detailed knowledge of tax policy, criticizing the lack of refinement in the draft car tax bill and inquiring about the taxation of specific vehicles (tractors, ATVs, and vintage vehicles).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical and direct, using strong language, such as "stupidity," to characterize the government's tax policy. The speaker uses both procedural logic (the structure of the Q&A session) and economic arguments (competitiveness and livelihood) to substantiate their views. The tone is formal, but it contains a sharp political attack.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker actively participates in the Riigikogu information session, focusing on the parliament's routine oversight mechanisms. They refer to the Prime Minister's weekly attendance and the participation of other ministers, which takes place every couple of months, in an effort to improve the procedure for sharing information.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is focused on the government's tax policy, which is being criticized for undermining economic competitiveness and worsening people's livelihoods. The criticism is both substantive (the car tax is nonsense) and procedural (the draft bill is crude and ignores the coalition partner's proposals). He/She directly criticizes the Prime Minister, asking why he/she failed to take into account the proposals of his/her own party colleague.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
In procedural matters, he accepts the existing consensual approach but proposes improvements aimed at increasing efficiency. On the policy front, he emphasizes the lack of internal government cooperation, highlighting the Prime Minister's failure to take into account the Culture Minister's proposals regarding the tax exemption for vintage vehicles.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker is focusing on regional issues, stressing that the proposed car tax will exacerbate inequality for those living outside major urban centers. They highlight the crucial role of the car as a necessary utility vehicle in areas lacking adequate public transport infrastructure, particularly when contrasted with Tallinn’s free public transportation system.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are strongly opposed to tax hikes, arguing that they diminish business competitiveness and harm people's livelihoods. He considers the government's tax increases, intended to "cure the economy," to be ineffective. He prefers to avoid implementing new taxes, recommending instead that they scrap the elimination of the non-existent "tax hump," which would yield greater financial savings.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Insufficient data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is currently on opposing the proposed car tax bill, which he deems ill-conceived and poorly prepared. He stresses that Parliament has the option of preventing the abolition of the tax bracket change (the "tax hump") from taking effect, arguing this is a far more sensible alternative than imposing new taxes. He remains an active critic and opponent of current legislation.
3 Speeches Analyzed