Conversing Over the Divide: An Meeting Between Opposing Viewpoints

Introducing the Participants

One Participant: Peter, 34, from London

Occupation Ex- civil servant, now a learner studying community health

Political history Voted the Green Party last time (and a affiliate of the party); formerly Labour. Identifies as “progressive, and internationalist instead of nationalist”

Interesting fact A drawing of a tea cup Peter created as a kid was once displayed in the Irish National Gallery

Second Diner: Akshat, 43, from Harrow

Occupation Risk analyst in the construction sector

Voting record Originally from India, he has resided in the UK for five years, and supported Conservative. Identifies as “somewhat moderate right”

Interesting fact Akshat taught himself to understand Urdu. “It has no practical use for me, I simply found it intriguing”

Initial impressions

Akshat During the past 20 years, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, East Asia, the United States. The issues Peter and I discussed are UK-centric, 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 had a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, he opted for mojitos.

The second participant We split appetizers – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think Akshat was. Was he going to attack me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. My childhood was in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and the Iberian Peninsula. We connected through our love of the capital.

Key disagreements

Akshat I look at immigration like adding salt to a meal. With a small amount, the dish tastes wonderful. Add too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.

Peter He used an analogy about seasoning. It would be odd to exist if the state was selecting some preferred demographic of the nation.

The first participant There are, sadly, individuals fleeing persecution, but a lot of people coming to the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who may not contribute much and can burden the welfare system. Nobody forces you to move to a new country for prospects, so you should only go if you can take care of yourself and your family.

The second participant We became confused with certain details. In my view it’s like you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you get permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. The climate has been unwelcoming for some time, application costs are really high, you pay an healthcare levy, access to benefits is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding 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 believe we have to have a certain level of humanity.

Sharing plate

Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unregulated markets. So am I, but at the same time, wealth creation benefits society and should be encouraged.

The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that certain elements of society – government, the media – benefit from stoking division. We did find common ground in fundamentals and ethics.

Dessert and debate

Akshat Peter believes that because the United Kingdom profited from colonial times, it ought to provide compensation to those countries. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess history with contemporary ethics; eras vary, modern people had no control of what happened decades or a century ago. Suppose the Britain had to compensate the Indian nation, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is Britain able to do that? No.

The second participant Until recently, 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 Irish famine and the role that imperial rule played in it. My view is decolonization isn’t just about signing a cheque, it should be about looking at past errors and where we should be now.

Takeaways

The first participant It won’t change the my perspective, but I understand Peter’s concerns. I converse with individuals every day whose views are contrary to my own. The goal is uniting people to the same page, so that everyone can strive for the betterment of society.

The second participant We were there for 150 minutes. Akshat had dessert and I had a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we each liked dinner, so we might become more open to engaging in dialogues with other people in future.