By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The primary opponents are the government coalition and specific ministers who stand accused of pro-Russian sentiment, unethical conduct, and incivility, particularly toward their female colleagues. The criticism is intense, encompassing both political attacks (voting rights, the woke agenda) and personal and procedural attacks. Furthermore, the speaker criticizes the session's presiding officer for potential bias in the allocation of speaking times.

The main opponents are the government's renewable energy policy and specific ministers (Jürgen Ligi, Lauri Läänemets). Jürgen Ligi is criticized for his personal rudeness and unethical conduct, while Läänemets is criticized for avoiding the topic of red symbols and disseminating messages reminiscent of the rhetoric of the eastern neighbor. The criticism is intense and demands a clear reassessment of the ministers' suitability.

The main opponents are the ruling coalition (including former Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and Minister Jürgen Ligi) and the banking sector. Criticism is aimed both at political decisions (specifically, avoiding the bank tax) and ethical issues (the influence bankers hold over the government and the bias shown by experts). The coalition's stance on the bank tax is being directly labeled as demagoguery.

The primary target is the government, particularly Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi, who faces intense criticism on both personal and procedural grounds. Ligi stands accused of lying, contradicting himself, and refusing to apologize for personally insulting a colleague. Criticism is also aimed at specific government policies, such as the tax hike and the renting out of prison spaces, alongside the perception that the minister's responses lack substance.

The opposition is targeting the government and ministers, criticizing their incompetence (such as forgetting 69 million euros in the budget) and wasteful spending (Rail Baltic, NGOs, PR expenditures). The criticism is primarily political and procedural, accusing the coalition representative of populism. Furthermore, it challenges the ministers' authority to reallocate funds at their discretion.

The main criticism is aimed at the government and the Reform Party, who are accused of making poor decisions that resulted in economic recession and inflation, as well as breaking their election promises. The criticism is both political (energy, taxes) and procedural (the presiding officer’s shaky adherence to "good practices") and even extends to matters of personal morality (the contradictions between the Finance Minister’s lifestyle and environmental philosophy).

The primary opposition is directed at the government and the responsible minister, who stands accused of using rhetoric and avoiding direct questions. Criticism targets both political decisions (cuts, tax hikes) and ethical and procedural issues (such as changing the requirements for the State Secretary). The situation where a top official participates in coalition negotiations and subsequently laws are changed to allow them to take a new post is criticized particularly sharply, with critics labeling it a "banana republic" practice.

The opposition's stance is directed against the bill proposed by the government and the minister's responses. The criticism is policy-driven, alleging that services are being cut back under the guise of "flexibility" and demanding accountability for inaccurate financial data. The attacks are intense, but they focus on the substance of the policy, not the individuals involved.

The speaker is in opposition to the Minister of Defence, criticizing the government's potential lack of transparency when discussing crucial security decisions. The criticism targets the procedure and the concealment of these issues, demanding the disclosure of the content of the cabinet discussions.

The opposition is directed against the government’s administrative changes, criticizing the logic and financial justification behind the reorganization of work between the ministry and the Health Board. The criticism is policy-driven and focuses on the contradictions between the goals of reducing bureaucracy and the actual growth of the budget.

The main criticism is directed at the minister (Svet) and the government, accusing them of contradictory budget decisions and vague planning. The criticism is policy- and results-based, specifically highlighting the reduction of road maintenance funds and the prioritization of Rail Baltic financing.