The social experiment that could change the world

reply to post by ll__raine__ll


For the set up fee of £150? I am

If the group makes for example the 10,000 mark I'd be happy to put up the cost of the admin fee in order to set up the party. From there I'd be working with all of the members to set out the proposal into a structured proposal; I've experience of business plan writing, but not legal or manifesto, which is why I'm testing the responses here and will be looking for help in working on these. The manifesto side is a little tricky as how do you propose a vote on every issue if we're only contesting one seat, but again it's a bridge to cross at a later date.

I would be asking the help of everybody involved to network and spread the word (note to mods: not doing that here, no t's & c's violated, move away from the ban button ) and also to help out with the marketing. There would be a certain level of structure involved but I was actually put off by a particular, albeit well meaning group earlier in the year because they were so rigid about the way they wanted to be promoted. As a true reflection of the united people it may be argued that we need a united message, again open to debate, but I feel that anyway should be the only way - after all this is aimed to be 'by the people, for the people' so let the people decide how best (within reason of course) to promote the group, or as it may result the party.

I can certainly create the website, brochures, flyers and such on my home PC, which I have professional experience in the likes of Photoshop and basic HTML development. I also have a host of friends who are more experienced than myself who I know will help the cause.

When you really get down to it you just have to be behind the idea. That's the difficult part. Getting a clear and concise message out in the first place so that everyone understands the concept, and then use the social, viral and word of mouth aspects that have enabled so many other successes to work for us, supported by the marketing the members produce.

To be honest at this time multiple Facebook accounts aren't a concern. I don't know anyone myself with more than the one account and if there wereI can't see many joining over more, if only to cast votes for local representatives but I don't think, getting to that stage, that would be handled over facebook, rather we'd set up the party site and send out unique identifiers to fixed addresses (perhaps, I'm not certain) to ensure that there were no more than one vote per person... any more than 2 people at one address would raise questions and this could be queried. How, and at whose expense is again another issue. I wouldn't be adverse to sponsorship of some level, as long as the overriding message was promoted as opposed to a way of selling to our members... how that works, again I don't have the answer, so thanks for bringing these to my attention too


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Pr0t0]

I think this is a very good idea and there's every possibility that it could make a difference. The power needs to be returned to the people, and taken from the corrupt elite. I hope this brings you all the success you hope for! S&F

However, one thing. Let's say this campaign is entirely successful. Let's say you gain many seats in Parliament and you become the most popular party and take control. How will you ensure that your party members will not be corrupted in the same way that any young MP with bright ideas is as soon as they join that social elite? How can you stop your party being corrupted in the same way everyone else has? The members who sit in government will undoubtedly be offered some amount of money or position of power (let alone the possible threats to their health) to keep their mouths shut about certain things, or keep the money flowing to TPTB. How can this be avoided?

reply to post by Pr0t0


it wouldn't be difficult to get a following of 10,000 people on facebook. a lot of us with just ordinary personal accounts have in excess of 4 - 5 thousand "friends".

but sorting the chaff from the wheat and trying to organize and co-ordinate them into something more productive would be a logistical nightmare and near impossible in my opinion.

i don't doubt your sincerity or ideals on this matter. it's just that, from what you've written so far, it doesn't sound like a very viable project.

I love where your going with this. Using the internet to incite mass change is the only way and it is right at our fingertips. We must be responsible and utilize this gift before it is taken away from us.

Very valid points. I think it would have to be agreed upon to enter a contractual obligation in that members who are voted in purely to represent their constituency are not at liberty to make any decisions outside of the majority agreement of the members. Political parties are able to oust members of their own party who go against the grain, and this would have to be no different in the current system.

If a member is voted in it would be in their, and everybody else interest to be solely in place for the purpose of the current operational methods of the government. We can't change the single member per constituency vote of the current government from the outside, but with enough who are well vetted and are genuinely behind the ideals of the group/party gaining seats, and who knows even a spot in number 10 (:lol, we can work our way at perhaps looking to dissolve the current processes in favour of an overhaul to the true majority vote.

All of these are problematic, as the way we've been brought up is to be greedy... I don't think it's natural I think it's a bi-product of our society. I know I for one would uphold the decision of the majority members, even if I was staunchly opposed, because that's the whole idea. Regardless of the fancy offers coming in I have a daughter to think about and I want a better place for her to grow up and raise her kids. I'm sure there are plenty more out there who feel the same, we just have to make sure they're on board.

reply to post by Somethingtosay


Wow, I'm so glad you found this and commented. I was just typing into a word document:


"The elite propose that the internet is “the most dangerous tool in history”...and they're right – at least to them, it is. They know that sooner or later the people will group en mass, using the internet as a way to unite. We're offering this chance here. This once in a million lifetimes opportunity.
Because, over the next 4 years there is every chance, through sites just like Facebook, they will have data mined all of the information they need from you and suddenly we will find parts of the web closing as security measures to prevent 'potential threats'.

This isn't conspiracy, in fact the shut down of various user communities has already been discussed and laws have already been passed which makes this closure legal and imminent."

I genuinely believe that social change will come about using the internet - it already has in many ways, but we can only keep it alive and organic as long as those trying to hold onto power are removed.

Great, thanks

Having a contractual agreement to not make decisions outside of the constituency is a very good idea, and would also sort out the "chaff from the wheat" problem that was mentioned earlier. Facebooks one thing where many people just obsessively join groups without any real thought, but if you had a contract upon party membership that would (hopefully) deter those that could use the party as an opportunity to get power, status and money.

When are you hoping to start this FB group?

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll
reply to post by Pr0t0

 

sorting the chaff from the wheat and trying to organize and co-ordinate them into something more productive would be a logistical nightmare and near impossible in my opinion.

i don't doubt your sincerity or ideals on this matter. it's just that, from what you've written so far, it doesn't sound like a very viable project.

logistical nightmare, yes. Impossible, never. I don't think for a second that anything is impossible. Difficult and challenging? I hope so, because the reward for everyone will be far greater.

For an example, it's my understanding, from a technical point of view, that every single transaction, operational occurrence and process in the known world can be automated, or at least operated via just one computer program. Sure you'd need a processor that has probably not been invented yet, but in theory we could write that program tomorrow and have everything from your bank statements, to the order of the traffic lights, to the satellite feeds and the sprinkler timers in your neighbours yard all controlled via one program... I hope that wasn't too OT I like to look at the big picture. Everything has been overcomplicated, and I do like to simplify, especially when I know, with full confidence, that it is possible.

If they can run a con as elaborate as the current political system, with the dedication, passion, desire and a little persistence, I know hand on heart 110% that hard as it may be, nothing is impossible

Some may say I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one.

reply to post by AdamH


As soon as reasonably possible. I want to be able to have everything on paper to the point where I'd personally be happy to promote the idea.

Having said that the very nature of the party has to be organic and not set and rigid like most political parties today. We have to be open to change from the outset, after all it's designed to be what the people want and if they don't like something, it will have to change.

I'll be working on the outline of the message over the next couple of days. The title of the group and the content of the mission statement has to be very concise and straight to the point in order to catch and maintain peoples attention (something I'm admittedly not so great at, I'm often fairly verbose as you may have noticed in my posts).

Please, please keep the messages coming in, your input is essential and I can say without doubt that I'm certainly going ahead with the group, I'll need all the constructive comments I can get. This isn't my idea, it's our idea. Without everyone's input, be that positive or negative as long as it is constructive or at least points out legitimate failings, this would go nowhere and we'd once again be resigned to just settling for what we have... and I for one am tired of that, so let's try another approach

reply to post by ll__raine__ll


I just re-read that... you have 4-5000 friends???

Wow. I have 148... but in fairness I actually do know, and have met, every single one of them.

So when the time comes I hope we can count on your list we'll be needing those sort of numbers!!

reply to post by Pr0t0


don't think i'm trying to rag on you or your ideas because i'm definitely not. anything i say here would be nothing compared to the flack you will get should you proceed. add to that, i too think the power of the internet (like our brains, lol), is hugely under-utilized.

ultimately though i think it's going to boil down to money and that's one thing the majority of facebook users don't have an abundance of. (and typically those who do have a lot don't part with it that easily, that's why they have lots)

because the bottom line here is you are suggesting forming a party bigger than what is already established and that is going to take huge amounts of money. 300 bucks (150 pounds) won't cut it.

and to parrot anothers concern which you've already addressed - what isgoing to make your party better or less uncompromisable than any else? good intentions, money and politics are never a good mix.

OT: i recently supported a boycott group on facebook which grew from a few members to over 60,000 within a few days. the support and outrage of the group was effective enough to get the attention of the boycotted party who opened up lines of communication with the founder of the group.

despite warnings from a lot of us in the group, not to be charmed or shmoozed, the founder of the group, within another 2 days, caved to the boycotted party and promptly shut down the group. it was a total waste of time, effort and potential.

this one small situation proved to me how easily someone with the best intentions can be corrupted. it also makes me weary and cynical about the ability of others.

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll
don't think i'm trying to rag on you or your ideas because i'm definitely not. anything i say here would be nothing compared to the flack you will get should you proceed. add to that, i too think the power of the internet (like our brains, lol), is hugely under-utilized.

Absolutely, I expect an awful lot more stick for even contemplating the idea. Luckily I'm not easily swayed by any means. Having been on both sides of the fence relating to earnings - I've had fantastic wages, and I've lived with nothing - I know what I can have with a little bit more, but the only currency I consider of value is my own pride and respect of my children. I need to look them in the eye and say 'I can help' and if it fails, 'I tried'.

Do you really think money is this big a stumbling block? I'm not so convinced. We have access to so many ways of spreading the word for free and producing our own materials, websites etc for free that the only real cost will occur at a time far down the line when the party campaigns for election. At which point we will need enough members to warrant the cost and if we have enough members pledging to vote the campaigning, again as most is already done through social and viral, will be minimal.

because the bottom line here is you are suggesting forming a party bigger than what is already established and that is going to take huge amounts of money. 300 bucks (150 pounds) won't cut it.

Don't think that because the big parties spend fortunes on fancy dinners, door to door campaigning, leafleting and so on we're going to have to be just like them. This is a vote for real change and that includes how we perceive the political system as a whole. The plan is not to be just another party, the plan is to be so radically, but acceptably different in our approach, and to show the big spenders how to really stretch a budget, without needing to sell your moral values to the highest bidder.

good intentions, money and politics are never a good mix.

I have to disagree. I think good intentions & politics will mix perfectly well. I also think it's long overdue that politicians set out with good intentions. I can't name one who I would consider has really gone above and beyond to make sure their constituents are heard... not one. Constituents have been attacked over here recently in Manchester Hazel Belars car was set upon - by the people she is supposed to represent. Just goes someway to say how much respect they've gained, and although that may not be her fault entirely I'm sure a bit of 'good intention' would help her cause no end. Money isn't of concern. If enough people follow the idea to the launch of the party (which really is only £150 as stated all marketing can be handled without initial cost)

Interesting story about the boycott group. It just goes to show how easily swayed some people can be. Luckily I'm not and the group will fly in the face of this for the exact reason that it needs to change from the top, down and from the inside, out. So everyone involved must put any notion of greed or corruption aside and ensure they are involved for the right reasons as dictated by their sense of whats right and wrong. Maybe I'm putting excess faith into the idea, but like I say I don't think I'm alon in this line of thinking

Thanks again for raising some good points.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Pr0t0]

This topic has lightened my day.

Iv only been using ATS for 2 months-ish and been researching 'conspiracy, out there' related topics for about four months.

but i have already been convinced in the need for a totally different approach in concerns to the political ideologies of the UK (& most of the planet).

anyway, to cut a long story short im 16, going to study politics (fingers crossed for exam results) and very interested in this group.

so i ask... what now? what specific ideals do you wish to contribute to the party?