Conversing Over the Divide: A Meeting Among Opposing Viewpoints
Introducing the Participants
First Participant: P., 34, from London
Occupation Former civil servant, now a learner studying community health
Voting record Supported Green recently (and a member of the party); formerly Labour. Describes himself as “left, and internationalist rather than patriotic”
Interesting fact A sketch of a teacup Peter created as a kid was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Diner: Akshat, 43, from Harrow
Occupation Risk analyst in the construction sector
Political history Originally from the Indian subcontinent, Akshat has resided in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “slightly moderate right”
Interesting fact Akshat taught himself to understand the Urdu language. “It has no practical use for me, I was just fascinated”
For starters
Akshat Over the last two decades, I’ve lived and worked in Qatar, South Korea, the US. The topics we talked about are focused on Britain, but they are also universal, because human life more or less evolve similarly wherever it is. I was expecting someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, he opted for mojitos.
The second participant We split appetizers – seafood rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think Akshat was. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. My childhood was in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and Spain. We connected through our affection for the capital.
The big beef
Akshat I view immigration like adding salt to a meal. When you add a little bit, the dish is delicious. Add too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat used an analogy regarding seasoning. It would be odd to exist if the state was selecting some ideal ethnic makeup of the country.
The first participant There are, unfortunately, people fleeing persecution, but many migrants arriving in the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who may not add significant value and can weigh on the welfare system. No one compels you to move to a different nation for prospects, so you ought to relocate if you can take care of yourself and your family.
The second participant We got lost with some of the facts. I don’t think it’s like you arrive and are employed and then following a half-decade you get indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, application costs are quite expensive, there is an NHS surcharge, access to benefits is limited. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding the new policies, under which you can’t bring your family over, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I think we have to have a certain level of compassion.
Common ground
Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but at the same time, wealth creation helps communities and ought to be promoted.
Peter We each have global outlooks. And we agreed that some parts of the community – politics, the media – thrive off creating conflict. We did find shared understanding in basic principles and values.
For afters
The first participant Peter believes that because the United Kingdom benefitted from colonial times, it should pay compensation to those countries. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess the past with present day morality; eras vary, modern people had no control of events 50 or 100 years ago. Suppose the UK was obliged to repay India, it would be a huge amount of funds. Is Britain able to do that? No.
The second participant In the past, I believe there was much reckoning with colonial history. For example, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, the public weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule contributed to it. I hold that decolonisation is not merely about signing a cheque, it ought to involve looking at past errors and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I understand Peter’s concerns. I talk to people regularly with opinions are contrary to mine. The goal is uniting people to the common understanding, so that all of us can work towards the betterment of the community.
The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had a Japanese dessert wine. I didn’t persuade him of any point, but we each liked the meal, so we might become more open to engaging in dialogues with other people in the coming times.
