On Thursday, the Latvian Parliament once again rejected a motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Evika Siliņa (New Unity – JV), submitted by the opposition party Latvia First (LPV) and several other opposition MPs.
A total of 51 deputies voted against the motion, while 28 voted in favor, representing the LPV, United List, and National Alliance factions. Most members of the Stability! faction did not participate in the vote.
Siliņa had already survived a no-confidence vote a week earlier. However, LPV representative Ainārs Šlesers criticized the Prime Minister for not attending the parliamentary debate on the matter and announced plans to submit another resignation demand.
Speaking from the Saeima podium on Thursday, Šlesers again criticized Siliņa’s absence, arguing she missed the chance to respond to opposition concerns. He spent considerable time criticizing the governance of major infrastructure and state-owned companies, notably Rail Baltica and airBaltic, highlighting airBaltic’s losses and stating it “should be profitable or at least not run at a loss.”
Šlesers also called on President Edgars Rinkēvičs to take action if dissatisfied with the current government and advocated for the formation of a professional, technocratic cabinet.
MP Antoņina Ņenaševa (Progressives) linked the LPV’s repeated motions to pre-election campaigning, suggesting Šlesers’s true aim is to become Mayor of Riga, allowing him to engage in “political business.” Ņenaševa quipped that if Šlesers is elected to the Riga City Council, it would at least mean he won’t be in the Saeima for a while.
In conclusion, she urged MPs not to support the resignation request.
As previously reported, the two no-confidence motions were submitted just weeks before the municipal elections, accompanied by extensive debate in Parliament. Opposition MPs claimed that Siliņa’s government has failed to effectively address key national issues.
However, coalition faction leaders dismissed the demands, saying they were politically motivated campaign tactics with no substantive basis.