Conversing Across the Divide: A Meeting Among Opposing Perspectives
Meeting the Individuals
One Diner: P., 34, from London
Occupation Former civil servant, currently a student focusing on public health
Political history Supported Green recently (also a affiliate of the party); formerly Labour Party. Identifies as “progressive, and internationalist rather than patriotic”
Interesting fact A drawing of a teacup Peter did as a child was once displayed in the Irish National Gallery
Other Diner: A., 43, from Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector
Voting record Originally from India, Akshat has resided in the UK for half a decade, and supported the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “somewhat right of centre”
Amuse bouche He self-learned to understand Urdu. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”
For starters
The first participant During the past 20 years, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, East Asia, the United States. The issues Peter and I talked about are focused on Britain, but they are also global, because people's lives largely evolve similarly across the world. I was expecting a staunch liberal, but he was quite measured – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We split starters – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I believe he was too. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. My childhood was in Dublin; I have resided in the United States and Spain. We bonded over our affection for the capital.
The big beef
The first participant I view immigration like adding salt to a meal. When you add a little bit, the food is delicious. Add too little or too much and the meal is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat had a metaphor regarding seasoning. It would be a funny place to exist if the government was selecting some preferred demographic of the country.
The first participant There are, unfortunately, people escaping oppression, but a lot of people coming to the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who may not add significant value and can burden the welfare system. Nobody forces you to go to a different nation for opportunity, so you should only go if you are able to support your own needs and your family.
Peter We became confused with some of the facts. In my view it is the case that you arrive and work and then after five years you get indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, visa fees are quite expensive, you pay an healthcare levy, access to benefits is restricted. There is no special treatment for anyone. And concerning the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we don’t want you. I think we have to have a certain level of humanity.
Common ground
The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but simultaneously, economic growth benefits society and ought to be promoted.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that certain elements of the community – government, the press – thrive off creating conflict. We did find shared understanding in basic principles and ethics.
Dessert and debate
The first participant Peter is of the opinion that because the UK profited from the colonial era, it ought to provide reparations to affected nations. I simply think: it is unfair to assess the past with present day morality; eras vary, current society had no control of events 50 or 100 years ago. Suppose the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a significant sum of money. Is Britain able to do that? Certainly not.
The second participant Until recently, I believe adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. For example, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people weren’t aware of the Great Famine and the role that imperial rule played in it. I hold that decolonization isn’t just about signing a cheque, it ought to involve examining what went wrong and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It may not alter the way I think, but I appreciate his worries. I converse with people regularly with opinions are contrary to mine. The goal is uniting people to the common understanding, so that all of us can strive for the improvement of society.
Peter We were there 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 dinner, so we might become more open to engaging in dialogues with others in the coming times.