Right now it seems that Parempoolsed is the only party that doesn't think money grows on trees, but that could change quickly once they themselves reach the circle of decision-makers. In politics in 2025, is promising money more important than sticking to one's principles?

There has definitely been a shift in recent times. The desire or habit to hand out more money than the state can afford has come up before. Already in the 1990s, forces appeared promising everything from pension increases to other nice things at every election. That trend existed then, but my personal sense is that it has deepened and has been adopted more broadly by politicians.

From my time in politics, I remember that left-wing politicians used to say their job was to hand out money, while the Reform Party and Isamaa were the ones expected to find that money.

At some point, when politics was no longer populated by people who saw themselves as temporary or non-professional politicians, a break occurred. Even right-wing politicians, whose role was supposedly to find the money, began to think maybe that approach didn't work anymore.

Yet in fact, the Reform Party demonstrated for a long time that it was possible to succeed in elections with more or less right-wing policies. Yes, they flirted a little and made promises to certain groups that went further than what was really appropriate, but overall they managed.

Now it seems that right-wing politicians' faith in their own worldview has disappeared or is disappearing.

To me, the clearest warning sign is when a key Reform Party decision-maker now says, instead of thinking about how to get the economy moving and solve problems: "Don't worry, we'll find the money for pensions no matter what. We'll launch new social benefits."

Once money is promised in that way, voters will eventually expect it to be delivered.

This trend is only deepening, in my view, and it stems from the fact that politicians no longer think they've taken responsibility for four years before returning to their old jobs after an election. Instead, their goal is to be lifelong, professional politicians, which makes their maneuver room much narrower.

We know the saying that if you want to be liked, you have to crawl. I think a politician should not crawl. They should realize their principles.

Reform is clearly a very strong party, with a large and solid structure, and it will certainly remain after the next election cycles. Is it really so terrible if, for example, after the next Riigikogu election, the Reform Party ends up with just 10 seats?

I share that view in principle, but if you went through the ranks of the Reform Party or any other party currently in the Riigikogu and asked their members how terrible that would be, you'd get very different answers.

But yes, politics works that way: sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

People's moods are volatile and it's natural they don't like certain ongoing processes.

Voters themselves are quite contradictory: on the one hand they're angry that taxes are being raised, but on the other hand they're angry when spending is cut. That contradiction carries over into politics. Still, it's right that a strong party remains true to its principles.

The pendulum swings back and forth strongly. I want to see how Isamaa fulfills its promises — promises their chairman and leaders keep repeating in rhetoric — that all taxes will be rolled back while spending is increased even further. How will they do that if they come to power?

This could be one of the problems: if you make empty promises in opposition, the reality that awaits you in government is so different that your actions will also be so different that voters feel betrayed — and become stingy with their votes the next time. That opens the door for new players, who can make popular promises. It works for a while, then voters feel betrayed again.

In elections you must be ready for both victory and defeat. The people have the right to make mistakes and their own choices, and they usually correct those mistakes at the next election.

In spring 2023, the coalition agreement was signed and we were told that the situation was bad, so taxes needed to be raised and spending cut. That was understandable as a way to limit overspending. Time passed, the tax increases came gradually, but real work on spending cuts wasn't done. At some point it was clear the deficit wasn't as big as claimed. Yet we kept hearing the same parroted message that things were very bad. Now suddenly it turns out tax relief is possible. Why weren't these proposals made already when Kristen Michal took office [summer 2024] or at the latest when the Social Democrats were pushed out [spring 2025]? If the government wants to send a calming message to society, why only do it when approval ratings are about to turn negative? Can't they do the math?

I no longer follow the state's finances on a daily basis, so I can't criticize or say whether they had that information earlier or how it moved.

But it's clear that for entrepreneurs and the business climate, the worst approach is having an idea today, a new tax tomorrow, coupled with "we're thinking, we don't know yet, we're still weighing." That is the absolute worst.

I left politics and all public positions in 2009 and the Riigikogu already in early 2008 — that was a long time ago. But our logic back then was that after the elections, when a coalition agreement was signed, the deal was made in a way that people would have a picture for the next four years.

I understand that governments change in between, one party leaves the coalition and another enters, so the agreement is adjusted. But it can't be like: today this way, tomorrow that way, jumping around. That destabilizes the entire business climate.

From my role on the supervisory board of a regulatory body, I have some contact with the car trade and I feel sorry for car dealers. On the one hand, they were told a tax was coming and it was imposed. That was a tough moment for them.

Now comrades Kallas and Michal are considering that maybe the tax won't come after all and probably think scrapping it will be popular. But that leaves car dealers unable to plan or act.

The issue isn't that they're lazy or doing something wrong in the market — the whole market and people are simply confused, waiting. For entrepreneurs, that's a nightmare.

The car tax is just one example. They also promised to restore the classic 2 percent corporate income tax.

Do you think entrepreneurs just sat back and waited? Of course not — they reacted. Some paid out dividends, withdrew money at the old rate, made their moves. Now they're told it's off the table.

Scrapping it is good in itself, but before you plan something, think three steps ahead. I think politicians today do these things far too lightly.

I don't know if they even go among people anymore. Back then, I remember traveling across Estonia as a politician, meeting with party members and visiting companies. You'd hear problems directly and get feedback you could act on.

Do today's decision-makers do that? Do they get feedback? Or maybe people have become so timid that they only complain on Facebook but don't say anything to your face?

My experience, from more than 20 years ago, was that entrepreneurs give you feedback — that's why they're successful — and you could adjust your behavior and plan accordingly.

Could part of the problem be that the circle of decision-makers at the top of the Reform Party has become too narrow? The parliamentary group is very large, nearly 40 people, but it's easier if a small group decides and others are just informed. I've sensed this in talking with MPs — they say, "Wait, we'll be told soon, then I can give an interview."

This is where it starts to sound like an "in-my-day" speech about how everything was rosy, but life may have changed and I don't know. The last time I attended a Reform faction meeting was in 2008. Back then, the faction was usually about 20 members.

So I can't really comment. Maybe with a large faction the meetings are like chat rooms where not everything gets discussed. Or maybe people are just happy to be at the table and don't want to criticize, pick fights or seem like whiners.

But yes, there is some problem with feedback. Are the listeners deaf or are those giving feedback speaking too softly?

Meanwhile, newspapers are full of popular criticism you can't do anything with.

This constant talk — "cut taxes, cut taxes" — doesn't lead anywhere. Or take the recent example of Toomas Luman, stepping down as head of the Chamber of Commerce: in one place he said the income tax increase should be scrapped, in another he suggested lowering VAT on food. What is a politician supposed to do when the head of such an influential organization is just slicing huge sums out of the budget? That leads nowhere.

But constructive criticism does exist and needs to be heeded.

How can we get out of this situation? Maybe we need a new coalition agreement, where parties sit down again, put things in writing and stick to them at least until the March 2027 elections, so everyone knows where they stand?

Trust has to be earned and confirmed through actions. I have a personal experience from 2021, when a coalition was formed for two years.

Keit Pentus-Rosimannus became finance minister and it was agreed no taxes would be touched. Six months later, full VAT was imposed on one product group — investment silver. Do I believe after that that whatever they put in writing will actually hold?

The state pushed pure demagoguery back then. When we said that market would disappear — because no one would buy an investment product with VAT — they arrogantly replied it was exaggerated and 70 percent of the market would remain.

I discussed it once with Pentus-Rosimannus, but they didn't want to talk. They just had some letter from Europe.

The fact they themselves had promised the public they wouldn't touch that area for years was instantly forgotten. No talks with stakeholders — just a snap decision. How do you rebuild trust after that?

About 20 years ago, the principle was written into law that tax rates couldn't be changed overnight — there had to be a transition period. And if you write in a coalition agreement that you won't touch anything for two years, then change it in six months, what trust are we talking about?

This is where politicians need to look in the mirror. No point pointing fingers. I'd understand if a war broke out — those are objective reasons. But this constant jumping around has nothing to do with war.

In 2023, the government was formed by the Reform Party, the Social Democrats and Eesti 200. It was a liberal coalition, but on economic issues it was like a crab crawling backward. At some point, Reform realized it couldn't continue with the Social Democrats and kicked them out. If they had formed a clearly right-wing government with Isamaa instead, wouldn't we have avoided this chaos in economic and financial matters?

If I remember correctly, in 2023 Isamaa's chairman was Helir-Valdor Seeder, who in fact didn't want to form a government with Reform. He couldn't reconcile working with Kaja Kallas at all, ideologically. As I recall, everything came down to that. If a partner won't even come to the negotiating table, there's nothing you can do.

In Estonian politics, once EKRE was created, many values were boxed into their own corners. Time will tell whether Urmas Reinsalu can break out of EKRE's shadow and form the kind of broad, ideological coalition you're describing.

Breaking that barrier would certainly please many people — including myself — who believe an ideological coalition is better than one formed on other grounds.

But at the same time, if a liberal and a conservative have to make decisions and one says, "Let's go back 30–40 years in time," and the other disagrees, that conversation ends right there. Everything else about the economy can then fall completely by the wayside.

So what happens next? To me, it seems the chaos will continue, because the coalition is in an increasingly difficult position, with one of its members also on the verge of collapse.

The whole problem is that no new people are stepping onto the stage — or very few — and those who do are not people who would bring a real breakthrough.

It's the same long-time players. They have their likes, dislikes and roles they've played themselves into, and it's very hard to break out of those. The great misfortune of our politics is that it's unpopular.

Parempoolsed is the only party where I see a hint of new quality in people.

Otherwise, it's all the same old faces. Recently I saw that not only Jüri Ratas had moved from Center Party to Isamaa, but also Peeter Võsa and others. These people won't change the world. They won't bring anything new to political decision-making. If politics is just a game of switching chairs, positions and parties, with ideals and principles worth nothing, then the game won't be good.

And if Reform continues this way... At times it seems some people in its leadership are no longer even aligned with the Reform Party's views but instead pushing outright left-wing views. That won't make things any better. The situation is bleak and I'm not very optimistic.

Finally, one thought: what today would motivate a person to enter politics? In the 1990s and early 2000s, people didn't go there mainly because it was a good job with good pay. They went driven by ideas, wanting to make things better.

That seems gone. People no longer say, "I'll dedicate four or eight years and get something done."

And no one is really waiting for new people either. They're wanted for the votes they bring, but the old players who want to keep their seats are already in place and content.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!