By Plenary Sessions: Madis Timpson
Total Sessions: 41
Fully Profiled: 41
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
Direct criticism is absent, but there are indirect references made to foreign states that might be interested in damaging Estonian infrastructure or that may not be interested in acceding to international treaties (with the hint that "everyone knows who is being discussed"). Cases of politically motivated, commissioned vandalism (such as the attack on the former Minister of the Interior's car) are also mentioned, highlighting the need for harsher penalties.
2025-09-24
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The speaker reports neutrally on the opposition, highlighting that colleague Vooglaid and the EKRE faction do not support the system regulated by the bill at a conceptual level. The opposition is clearly identified through the voting results (Peeter Ernits and Varro Vooglaid voted against). The criticism is aimed at the political concept, not at individuals or procedures.
2025-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 6th sitting, plenary session.
Insufficient data.
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
The confrontation is aimed at those debating the proportionality of the draft bill and whether the legal text allows for discretion. Kalle Grünthal was mentioned sarcastically regarding his alleged skill in selecting legal experts. The criticism is directed at the political and legal standpoints, not at a personal level.
2025-09-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The criticism is primarily aimed at state over-regulation and bureaucracy (which is essentially busywork), as well as the mindset of civil servants who constantly try to revive ideas that have been repeatedly rejected (such as the thought police or a penalty point system). Furthermore, a sharp personal comment was directed at Mr. Reinsalu, pointing out his failure to read crucial documents.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The confrontation is aimed at a specific member of the Riigikogu (Evelin Poolamets), whose absence from the session is being highlighted. The criticism is indirect, framed as concern for her health, but fundamentally, it concerns the fulfillment of her work duties and her attendance.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker documents the opposition's positions neutrally, highlighting the procedural remarks made by the Social Democratic Party concerning the bill's initiator. They also report on the substantive criticism from the Centre Party, specifically that the bill is not a comprehensive package and that the protection of fundamental rights is insufficient. No direct attacks are launched against opponents; instead, their concerns are relayed.
2025-06-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The primary conflict is with the opposition that filed the motion of no confidence, which is being criticized for offering inadequate and intellectually weak justifications. The criticism also targets the opposition's attempts to incite panic regarding prisons and their incorrect grasp of how the rule of law operates. There is no willingness to compromise; instead, the focus is entirely on completely discrediting the opposing side's arguments.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The speaker himself does not take a directly oppositional stance, but rather relays the criticism voiced by other parties, particularly concerning the insufficient involvement of trade unions and the demand for a wage rate for minors. The criticism targets both the procedural process and the content of the draft bill, also raising constitutional concerns.
2025-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting.
The speaker takes a stand against those who criticize the judicial system ideologically (a critique stemming from a right-wing worldview) or those who doubt Estonia's commitment to the rule of law. The criticism is particularly sharp towards the state, which has acted "faithlessly" or "broken its word" by failing to reinstate judges' salaries. He also criticizes the misinterpretation of inclusion, which would wrongly assume that 100% of all opinions must be taken into account.
2025-06-04
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The confrontation centers on the criticism of the existing system, which permits significant financial inequalities, citing the cases of Võrklaev and Reinsalu as examples. The criticism is directed at unfair regulation and its consequences, not directly at the individuals.
2025-05-13
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
There is no direct opposition; the speaker focuses instead on raising technical questions and recalling previous procedural concerns (the fear of defending the budget). The criticism is directed more towards unresolved procedural issues, rather than specific political opponents.
2025-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The criticism is aimed at the quality and procedures of the government’s legislative work, particularly concerning the increased administrative burden on businesses and the lack of constitutional compliance analysis. The opposition is procedural and concerning, but not personal, focusing instead on the system’s shortcomings.
2025-05-06
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The criticism is directed at shortcomings in the implementation of the policy, demanding a concrete plan and timeline from the government. The speaker is performing an oversight function by posing a question to the minister, but maintains a respectful tone while doing so. There is no direct personal or procedural criticism involved.
2025-05-05
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
There is no direct opposition, as the speaker notes that they "don't directly have anything against this bill." However, they do present procedural and substantive criticism, emphasizing that the bill requires amendments to the General Part of the Penal Code (KarS) and warns of the risk of the proceedings dragging on and the law becoming obsolete.
2025-04-23
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The criticism is aimed at the potential consequences of the policy or bill, which could restrict free will and override existing legislation. The opposition is based on policy or procedure, not personal grounds.
2025-04-22
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
There is no opposition; instead of criticism, the focus is on identifying a political gap (the absence of a modern basketball arena) and demanding a concrete plan regarding it from the minister.
2025-04-15
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
There is no opposition; the address is directed at the government representative with a constructive question and proposal, not criticism.
2025-04-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker is taking an oppositional stance toward the government, sharply criticizing the procedure used for preparing the draft legislation. The criticism is procedural and centers on the question of whether the government deliberately violated the law.
2025-03-20
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker himself does not express opposition, but rather references the criticism of colleagues Kingo, Grünthal, and Solman regarding the content of the draft bill (outdated content, discrimination against men) and the increase in bureaucracy. He also conveys the ministry’s objections to the criticism, remaining a neutral intermediary.
2025-03-12
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session
The speaker himself did not express opposition but rather relayed concerns raised by colleagues (e.g., Lutsar, Joller, Kingo, Grünthal) and the Office of the Chancellor of Justice regarding the specifics of the draft bill. The opposition primarily focused on the bill's potential impacts (parents of children under three, kindergarten availability) and procedural issues (the authority to decide on raising the pension age). The Ministry presented clear counter-arguments to all concerns, demonstrating that they were actively seeking compromises.
2025-03-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The criticism is directed at the inaction of the previous, unnamed government, which did not prioritize the zero bureaucracy program. The criticism is policy-based and moderate in intensity, focusing on the lack of political continuity.
2025-01-22
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session.
The disagreement emerged solely on a procedural matter, specifically where colleague Grünthal did not support delegating the authority to issue regulations to the Minister's competence. The speaker characterized this opposition as illogical, though low-intensity, noting that it would not prevent the adoption of the draft legislation. No substantive political criticism against the bill was reflected in the address.
2025-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The main criticism is aimed at the Centre Party, criticizing their inaction in 2017, when they headed both the government and the Riigikogu Finance Committee. The criticism is procedural and focuses on the avoidance of responsibility when addressing constitutional problems.
2024-12-16
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
A speaker harshly criticized the practice of government agencies using private law firms to draft legislation, seeing this as a threat to the state's legal sustainability. The criticism targets a procedure that compromises the credibility of public institutions and wastes taxpayer money.
2024-12-12
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The pushback is aimed at those who criticize the budget as a whole, claiming there is nothing good in it. The speaker acknowledges the differences between the various political parties but focuses instead on highlighting their own party's achievements and substantively defending the budget.
2024-12-05
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session.
The opposition is expressed by rejecting a specific accusation (that the government is hostile to children), but this is a brief and neutral comment. The criticism is aimed more at political labeling than at a specific opponent; there are no personal attacks.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
There is no direct political confrontation, but the speaker refutes the concern raised by the Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities regarding the creation of new financial obligations, citing the Ministry's counterarguments. The speaker also indirectly criticizes members of the Riigikogu who, during committee meetings, inquire about topics that fall outside the scope of the draft bill and the mandate of the Ministry of Social Affairs.
2024-12-03
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The confrontation is aimed at colleagues (Kingo, Solman), who are being criticized for distorting the content of the draft bill and spreading misinformation. Specifically, they are refuting claims that the bill would legalize pedophilia or allow individuals who have changed their names to evade the registry. The criticism is direct and focuses on the factual inaccuracy of the political statements.
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The stance toward opponents is generally conciliatory, avoiding personal criticism while acknowledging the Isamaa Party for raising the topic. However, on the legislative front, there is clear opposition to the Isamaa Party's constitutional amendment bill, and support is given to its rejection in the interest of procedural clarity.
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
There is no direct political opposition; the speaker neutrally relays the concerns raised by interest groups (e.g., the Chamber of People with Disabilities, the Nurses' Union) and the representative of the Chancellor of Justice regarding the bill’s impact. The criticism is aimed at the details of the policy and potential negative consequences, not at individuals.
2024-11-06
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The speaker does not criticize any political opponent or group. The only issue addressed is the inconsistency in the legal framework, which the National Audit Office highlighted.
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The speaker himself maintains neutrality but reports on the opposition viewpoints within the committee, particularly Kert Kingo’s comments regarding EU obligations, the gender equality draft bill, and the concerns raised by pharmaceutical wholesalers. He notes that Kingo views the EU mandates as imposing obligations on Estonia and is concerned about a potential loss of income for the wholesalers. The criticism is directed at the policy and the process, rather than being personal.
2024-10-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
Insufficient data
2024-10-10
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fourth sitting, plenary session.
There is not enough data.
2024-10-09
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fourth Session, Plenary Session.
No direct criticism is offered, as the rapporteur's role demands neutrality. The speaker does, however, indicate that in their normal political activities, they have treated opposition members differently from their party colleagues, suggesting previous partisan conduct. The report itself focuses on the funding concerns raised within the committee, rather than political opposition.
2024-09-25
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
There is no direct opposition or personal attacks, but the speaker corrects factual inaccuracies, pointing out that certain topics (e.g., the case studies cited by Mrs. Helme or the question of social gender) were neither raised nor discussed in the committee in the manner that other colleagues suggested. The criticism is aimed at procedural accuracy.
2024-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The criticism targets government agencies, citing their disregard for constitutional values and the inefficient use of resources stemming from excessive measurement. Specifically within the healthcare sector, the critique focuses on the existing legal framework and the Health Board's lack of competence in the cost-effective management of reserves—a criticism that is procedural rather than personal.
2024-09-16
The 15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting.
The speaker expresses personal opposition to the progressive income tax but fails to provide justifications for this stance. The committee's report highlights Kalle Grünthal’s detailed objection to the Ministry of Social Affairs’ positions regarding methods for increasing the birth rate.
2024-09-11
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
There is no direct opposition or criticism. The speaker asks questions regarding the Ministry of Justice's proposal to postpone the entry into force of the section of the law, but does so in a tone demanding clarification, not an aggressive or attacking one.
2024-07-23
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu.
Not enough data