I expect that much of the purpose of the Green Party is in pushing the government to act more radically on climate change than it otherwise would, I don't see it as a good sign in her admission to the party for her to imply that her stance on climate change is that Yabloko's policies are good enough. Climate policy is really at the margins of her interests, I don't see her having a reason to not mostly adopt the party line. Perhaps instead she can say she hopes to build upon the work that the Greens have already helped to make possible?Of course, as a part of the Green Party, I will be conducting a lot of awareness programs regarding Climate Change. The Greens and I am in agreement that we need to sponsor and continue the former government's environmental policies. Despite my.....less than stellar relation with the Yabloko Party, I agree on the ground level in regards to their environmental policies.
First off, I don't imagine anybody saying "As a LGBT", if pressed on her gender identity she would probably refer to herself as a trans woman. Secondly, and I probably should have gone into it in her stances section, but I think in her context, now that she's trying to get elected, she wouldn't try to bring direct attention to the fact she's trans. For all she knows, she might be sent out to try and get elected to a single-member district seat which doesn't happen to be dominated by liberal, pro-LGBT urban areas. The sad fact is that she would undoubtedly be criticised for "playing identity politics" and be stereotyped as only caring about that one thing if she at all emphasised that part of herself (I wouldn't doubt that some of her opponents would try to go that no matter what). I see her being professional but unashamed about her identity when asked about it by the media or anybody else, but always insisting that she's more interested in serving her constituents rather than in breaking any ceilings. If her opponents obsess over it, then they're the ones playing identity politics rather than offering solutions to the people they're be representing, and by that she might yet conquer. She would try to mention the cause of LGBT rights only in the wider context of social justice, saying it in the same breath as ethnic minority rights, women's rights, disabled rights, and so on.As a LGBT, as well, this is a great and momentous day for me and the entire Russian political world and realm. I intend to end the political ambivalence that we have in Russia in regards to LGBT people and communities and instead render our country pro-LGBT.
This doesn't really say much, and people would expect more from somebody who literally studied the constitution. She makes something of a criticism of the current system, but then doesn't offer anything to replace it with. I'm sorry if I've forgotten it being specified before, but how exactly does the electoral system work as of 2008? In any case, this would be good to mention a proposed reform which becomes a larger issue later on in the timeline; perhaps an introduction of more proportional representation if Russia's election system doesn't have it already, or maybe, as a big bugbear for Perevalova, reform of the FSB (with an eventual, perhaps privately-held, end goal of reducing it down to a role similar to that of Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, a small and controllable security agency that is dedicated to the defence of democracy against extremists). It also helps if she could mention other Greens that share the said proposal, so it doesn't look like she's getting too big for her boots as a party newbie.First and foremost my main goal and my main objective is to strengthen the growing democratic culture in Russia. Our autonomous governments need to have their power refined, and our government needs to be even more democratic. Direct elections in Okrugs are still an iffy position today and I hope to counter that.
I don't know what the Green Party's official line is regarding foreign policy, but whatever it is I'm betting that this is too extreme a statement for a member, particularly a brand new one with no elected office, to be making if she wants to remain in the good books of the party leadership. Yes, she wants Russia independent of reliance on China eventually, but she knows that right now China is a significant military and economic ally, and she would be criticised as a softheaded lunatic who wants to tear up Russia's security on these comments alone. She can make her point about her priorities by saying something like "Our environmental projects in Eurasia has proven our shared potential with the continuing growth of our union with our neighbours. Europe is a bastion of environmentalism and of individual liberties, and our differences should not get in the way of our shared goals. Finally, our allies in the Middle East and in Africa have shown great progress in their economic and social development, and Russia's mission should be to build a peaceful and prosperous world with them." No mention of China, no mention of America, the relatively few people paying that much attention would understand her implication, but won't be able to criticise her in the way they could if she was overtly confrontational.Talking about this, I must enter foreign policy. I support the ongoing friendly relations with Europe. I also believe that America, and the rising dragon of China should not be trusted. Both are growing enemies of the state, even if we do not realize so in regards to the latter.