By Years: Aivar Sõerd

The style is predominantly formal and procedural, particularly when acting as the committee rapporteur, where they provide comprehensive overviews of the deliberations. When criticizing opposition draft legislation, the tone becomes sharp and direct, repeatedly posing rhetorical questions regarding the lack of preparation ("Has this matter truly been properly thought through?"). The arguments are primarily logical and fact-based, as they "completely refute" claims and point out "false assertions."

The rhetorical style is predominantly formal, analytical, and fact-based, focusing on details and procedural matters, particularly when acting as a committee rapporteur. He/She delivers sharp criticism, especially regarding administrative burden and budgetary inefficiencies, demanding concrete figures and answers (e.g., the magnitude of administrative costs involved in managing new taxes). He/She frequently employs the use of questions to highlight specific issues (e.g., the availability of pharmaceuticals or the overestimation of tax revenue).