By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The primary targets of criticism are the government as a whole, specifically Minister Sutt and the session chairman, Hussar. The criticism is both political (focusing on energy instability and the lowering of social standards) and personal/procedural (referencing Hussar's "ego project" and Sutt's "view from the helicopter"). The opposition is intense, demanding the withdrawal of the draft legislation and ruling out any compromise with the framework proposed by the government.

The primary criticism is leveled at the Prime Minister and their team, accusing them of having a "love affair with haphazard electricity developments" and failing to gather adequate expert information. Furthermore, he procedurally criticizes the Speaker of the Riigikogu, noting that the Speaker tends to respond with sharp disapproval or reproach when the questions are not to his liking. The criticism is primarily policy-based and procedural.

The main opponents are the Social Democrats, who are sharply criticized for promoting high taxes (including a car tax and a property tax) and for pushing misconceptions ("buying yachts"). The government is also criticized for reversing proposed legislation and employing pre-election stunts, as well as for handing over excessive control to the technocrats of the European Commission.

The speaker is strongly opposed to the Reform Party, the Social Democrats, and Eesti 200, accusing them of lying, hypocrisy, and failing to grasp the objectives of the Estonian state. The criticism is both political (the budget, the green transition) and personal/procedural (politicians hiding behind electoral alliances, absences from votes, and Läänemets’ pay raise). The speaker employs extreme rhetoric to underscore the moral and political unsuitability of their opponents to hold the reins of government.

The primary conflict is directed against the Minister of Finance and the government’s overall economic management. The criticism targets both specific budgetary decisions and the minister's attempts to criticize independent economic analysts (the Institute of Economic Research) and the business community. The intensity of the criticism is high, demanding concrete examples of the minister's actions.