Conversing Across the Gap: An Meeting Between Different Viewpoints
Introducing the Individuals
One Diner: Peter, 34, London
Profession Ex- civil servant, currently a learner focusing on community health
Voting record Voted the Green Party last time (also a affiliate of the party); previously Labour. Identifies as “progressive, and internationalist instead of patriotic”
Amuse bouche A drawing of a tea cup Peter created as a kid was once hung in the Irish National Gallery
Other Participant: Akshat, 43, from Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector
Political history Originally from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported the Conservative Party. Identifies as “slightly right of centre”
Amuse bouche Akshat taught himself to understand the Urdu language. “It has no practical use for me, I simply found it intriguing”
For starters
Akshat During the past 20 years, I’ve lived and worked in the Middle East, South Korea, the United States. The topics we talked about are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because people's lives largely follows the same curve wherever it is. I was expecting someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we had a good, rational discussion. I drank beer, he opted for mojitos.
Peter We split appetizers – seafood rolls, dumplings, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I believe he was too. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the US and Spain. We bonded over our affection for the capital.
Key disagreements
The first participant I view immigration like adding salt to a dish. With a small amount, the dish is delicious. Use too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat had a metaphor about salt. It would be odd to exist if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the country.
Akshat There are, unfortunately, people escaping oppression, but a lot of migrants arriving in the UK are economic migrants who may not contribute much and can burden the benefit system. Nobody forces you to go to a new country for prospects, so you should only go if you are able to support your own needs and your relatives.
The second participant We became confused with some of the facts. In my view it is the case that you arrive and work and then following a half-decade you obtain indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming for some time, application costs are quite expensive, there is an healthcare levy, access to benefits is limited. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anyone. And concerning the recent changes, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I believe we must maintain a certain level of compassion.
Sharing plate
Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth helps communities and ought to be promoted.
Peter We’re both internationalist. 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 ethics.
Dessert and debate
Akshat Peter is of the opinion that since the UK profited from the colonial era, it ought to provide compensation to those countries. I simply think: it is unfair to assess history with contemporary ethics; eras vary, current society were not responsible of what happened 50 or 100 years ago. Suppose the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a huge amount of funds. Is Britain able to manage that? Certainly not.
The second participant In the past, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. For example, when I first moved to the UK, the public had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the role that colonialism contributed to it. I hold that decolonisation is not merely about issuing payments, it ought to involve examining what went wrong and our current responsibilities.
Final thoughts
The first participant It may not alter the my perspective, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to individuals regularly with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that all of us can work towards the improvement of society.
The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank a Japanese dessert wine. I didn’t persuade him of anything, but we both enjoyed dinner, so we could hopefully be more receptive to having conversations with others in the coming times.
