Dining Over the Divide: An Meeting Between Different Perspectives
Introducing the Participants
One Diner: P., 34, from London
Profession Ex- government employee, now a student focusing on public health
Political history Supported the Green Party recently (and a member of the party); previously Labour. Describes himself as “progressive, and globalist instead of nationalist”
Amuse bouche A sketch of a teacup he created as a child was once hung in the Irish National Gallery
Other Participant: A., 43, Harrow
Profession Risk manager in the infrastructure industry
Political history Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, Akshat has resided in the United Kingdom for half a decade, and voted Conservative. Describes himself as “somewhat right of centre”
Interesting fact He self-learned to understand the Urdu language. “It has no practical use for me, I simply found it intriguing”
Initial impressions
The first participant Over the last two decades, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, South Korea, the US. The issues we discussed are UK-centric, but they are also global, because people's lives largely evolve similarly across the world. I anticipated someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, Peter had mojitos.
Peter We shared starters – fishy spring rolls, dumplings, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I believe Akshat was. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. My childhood was in Dublin; I have resided in the US and the Iberian Peninsula. We connected through our love of London.
Key disagreements
The first participant I look at immigration similar to sprinkling salt to a meal. With a small amount, the dish is delicious. Use too little or too much and the meal is either too bland or too salty.
The second participant Akshat had a metaphor regarding seasoning. It would be a funny place to be if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the nation.
Akshat There are, sadly, people fleeing persecution, but a lot of people arriving in the UK are economic migrants who may not contribute much and can weigh on the welfare system. Nobody forces you to move to a new country for opportunity, so you should only go if you are able to support yourself and your relatives.
Peter We got lost with certain details. In my view it’s like you come over and work and then after five years you obtain indefinite leave to remain. No process is guaranteed. The climate has been unwelcoming for some time, application costs are really high, you pay an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anyone. And regarding the new policies, under which you can’t bring your family over, it’s incredible to say: we desire your labor, but we reject you as a person. I think we have to have a degree of humanity.
Sharing plate
The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but at the same time, economic growth helps communities and should be encouraged.
The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that certain elements of society – government, the press – thrive off stoking division. 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 compensation to affected nations. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess the past with present day morality; eras vary, current society were not responsible of what happened 50 or 100 years ago. Suppose the UK had to compensate the Indian nation, it would be a huge amount of funds. Is the UK in a position to manage that? No.
The second participant In the past, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. As an instance, upon my arrival to the UK, the public had little knowledge of the Great Famine and the role that colonialism played in it. I hold that decolonisation is not merely about signing a cheque, it ought to involve examining what went wrong and where we should be now.
Final thoughts
The first participant It may not alter the my perspective, but I appreciate his worries. I converse with people every day with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about uniting people to the same page, in order that all of us can strive for the improvement of the community.
The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. 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 receptive to having conversations with other people in future.
