Conversing Across the Gap: An Meeting Between Different Viewpoints
Meeting the Participants
First Diner: P., 34, London
Profession Former civil servant, now a student focusing on public health
Political history Supported Green last time (also a affiliate of the party); previously Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and internationalist instead of patriotic”
Amuse bouche A drawing of a teacup Peter did as a kid was once hung in the Irish National Gallery
Second Diner: Akshat, 43, from Harrow
Occupation Risk manager in the infrastructure industry
Political history Hailing from India, he has lived in the UK for five years, and supported Conservative. Describes himself as “slightly moderate right”
Interesting fact Akshat self-learned to understand the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I was just fascinated”
Initial impressions
The first participant Over the last two decades, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, South Korea, the US. The topics Peter and I discussed are UK-centric, but they are also global, because human life largely evolve similarly wherever it is. I anticipated someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we had a good, rational discussion. I drank beer, Peter had mojitos.
Peter We shared starters – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think he was too. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the United States and Spain. We bonded over our love of London.
The big beef
Akshat I look at immigration similar to sprinkling salt to a dish. With a small amount, the food tastes wonderful. Use too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat had a metaphor regarding salt. It would be a funny place to be if the state was selecting some preferred demographic of the country.
Akshat There are, unfortunately, individuals fleeing persecution, but many migrants arriving in the UK are those seeking better finances who may not add significant value and can weigh on the benefit system. Nobody forces you to move to a new country for prospects, so you should only go if you are able to support your own needs and your family.
The second participant We became confused with certain details. I don’t think it is the case that you arrive and work and then following a half-decade you obtain indefinite leave to remain. No process is guaranteed. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, visa fees are quite expensive, you pay an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anyone. And concerning the recent changes, whereby family reunification is restricted, it is astonishing to state: we want your work, but we don’t want you. I believe we must maintain a degree of compassion.
Sharing plate
Akshat Peter questions unchecked capitalism. So am I, but at the same time, wealth creation benefits society and ought to be promoted.
The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that certain elements of society – politics, the press – benefit from stoking division. We did find common ground in basic principles and ethics.
Dessert and debate
Akshat Peter is of the opinion that because the United Kingdom profited from the colonial era, it should pay reparations to those countries. I simply think: you cannot judge the past with present day morality; eras vary, modern people had no control of what happened decades or a century ago. Let’s say the UK had to compensate India, it would be a significant sum of money. Is Britain able to do that? No.
Peter Until recently, I don’t think there was much reckoning with colonial history. As an instance, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the part that colonialism contributed to it. My view is decolonisation isn’t just about issuing payments, it should be about looking at past errors and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It may not alter the way I think, but I understand his worries. I talk to individuals every day whose views are contrary to my own. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that everyone can work towards the betterment of the community.
The second participant We were there for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank some sweet Japanese wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we both enjoyed the meal, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with other people in the coming times.
