By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The primary opposition is aimed at the government and the ruling political party (the Reform Party), who stand accused of potentially unethical media financing. Criticism has also been leveled at the Delfi Media group, which is suspected of intensifying journalistic pressure on the government's political opponents while anticipating state funding.

The primary targets are the Reform Party (over their tax policy and broken promises) and former Minister of the Interior Lauri Läänemets (SDE). The criticism is intense, alleging that Läänemets and the security agencies spread inaccurate information and exploited the incident purely for political gain. The speaker implies this may have been a "political hit job" or a "setup" designed to prop up the ruling establishment.

The main criticism is aimed at the Minister of Justice and the Reform Party, who are accused of avoiding responsibility and protecting their coalition partners (Timpson, Laanet, Lauri). The criticism is intense and addresses both political bias and the violation of the principles of the rule of law, particularly concerning the lack of oversight of prosecutors. The speaker demands that the minister personally take responsibility for his actions, rather than shifting the blame onto his predecessors.

The criticism is aimed at the bill's proponents regarding the poor legislative timing, as the declaration concerning end-of-life wishes reached the floor before the action plan for palliative care. Strong opposition is also voiced regarding the Supreme Court's decision in the Paul Tammert case, which established a precedent for assisted dying. The opposition is primarily procedural and value-based, not personal.

The main confrontation is aimed at the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the government, sharply criticizing both foreign policy decisions (specifically, anti-Israel votes) and the minister's conduct in the Riigikogu chamber. The criticism is intense and addresses both the substantive (policy) and procedural (inappropriate accusations, arrogance) levels. The speaker does not rule out a compromise but demands accountability and the creation of a strategy.

The criticism is aimed at the manipulative behavior of feuding parents who use children as a tool against the other parent and engage in social media cancellation. The current court system is also indirectly criticized, as it fails to ensure justice without the assistance of an additional independent expert.

The main criticism is directed at the government led by the Reform Party and the prime minister, accusing them of poor economic management and worsening the standard of living for the populace. The criticism is policy- and results-based, emphasizing the government's low support (80% of voters do not support it) and demanding snap elections. Additionally, the agreement concerning the transfer of Swedish prisoners is being criticized, highlighting reputational damage and security concerns.

The opposition is directed against the actions of the government or ministries, criticizing their past errors and demanding swift correction. The criticism is procedural and outcome-based, focusing on the state's conduct and work plans that require immediate modification.

The main opponents are the coalition and the Reform Party, who face fierce criticism over tax hikes and breaking previous promises. The criticism targets both policy issues (inflation, excise duties) and credibility, with the Prime Minister's statements being labeled an "information operation" or "a distortion of the truth."

The main criticism is directed at the strategic choices of the minister and the ministry, which leave rural roads neglected. The state is also generally criticized for being unwilling to provide local governments with the necessary funds to meet their mandated obligations. The criticism is policy- and results-based, focusing on the unfair distribution of infrastructure and funding.

The opposition’s position is aimed directly at the government and ministers, who are criticized for their passivity, offering insufficient solutions, and sending contradictory messages (e.g., regarding gender-based care). The Justice Minister’s stance that "nothing can be done" is deemed unsatisfactory. The criticism targets both political inaction (lack of prevention) and previous decisions (the cutting of child benefits).