Conversing Across the Divide: A Encounter Among Opposing Perspectives
Meeting the Individuals
One Diner: P., 34, London
Occupation Former civil servant, now a student studying public health
Political history Voted the Green Party last time (and a member of the political group); previously Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and internationalist instead of nationalist”
Amuse bouche A drawing of a tea cup he did as a kid was once hung in the Irish National Gallery
Other Diner: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Occupation Risk analyst in the infrastructure industry
Political history Originally from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the UK for five years, and supported the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “slightly right of centre”
Interesting fact Akshat taught himself to understand Urdu. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”
For starters
The first participant During the past two decades, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, East Asia, the US. The issues Peter and I talked about are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because people's lives more or less follows the same curve wherever it is. I anticipated someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we had a good, rational discussion. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We shared starters – seafood rolls, dumplings, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think Akshat was. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and Spain. We connected through our love of London.
Key disagreements
The first participant I look at migration like sprinkling salt to a meal. When you add a little bit, the dish is delicious. Use too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned.
The second participant Akshat had a metaphor about salt. It would be odd to exist if the government was selecting some ideal ethnic makeup of the country.
The first participant There are, unfortunately, people fleeing persecution, but a lot of people coming to the UK are those seeking better finances who do not necessarily add significant value and can burden the benefit system. No one compels you to move to a different nation for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you can take care of your own needs and your relatives.
Peter We got lost with certain details. In my view it is the case that you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you obtain permanent citizenship. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, visa fees are really high, you pay an NHS surcharge, access to benefits is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And concerning the recent changes, whereby family reunification is restricted, it is astonishing to state: we desire your labor, but we reject you as a person. I think we have to have a degree of compassion.
Common ground
The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unregulated markets. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth helps communities and should be encouraged.
Peter We each have global outlooks. And we concurred that some parts of the community – politics, the press – thrive off stoking division. We discovered shared understanding in basic principles and values.
For afters
The first participant Peter is of the opinion that since the United Kingdom profited from colonial times, it should pay compensation to affected nations. My view is simply: you cannot judge the past with present day morality; eras vary, current society were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Suppose the UK was obliged to repay the Indian nation, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is the UK in a position to manage that? No.
The second participant In the past, I believe there was much reckoning with the colonial past. For example, when I first moved to the UK, people weren’t aware of the Great Famine and the part that imperial rule contributed to it. My view is decolonisation is not merely about signing a cheque, it should be about examining past errors and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the my perspective, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to individuals every day with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, so that all of us can strive for the improvement of society.
Peter We remained for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank a Japanese dessert wine. I didn’t persuade him of anything, but we each liked the meal, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with others in future.
