Conversing Across the Gap: A Encounter Among Different Perspectives
Introducing the Participants
One Diner: P., 34, from London
Occupation Ex- government employee, now a student focusing on community health
Voting record Supported Green recently (and a affiliate of the party); formerly Labour Party. Describes himself as “left, and globalist instead of patriotic”
Amuse bouche A sketch of a tea cup he did as a child was once hung in the Irish National Gallery
Other Participant: A., 43, Harrow
Profession Risk manager in the construction sector
Voting record Hailing from India, he has resided in the United Kingdom for five years, and voted the Conservative Party. Identifies as “somewhat right of centre”
Interesting fact He self-learned to understand the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”
Initial impressions
Akshat During the past two decades, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, South Korea, the US. The topics we talked about are focused on Britain, but they are also universal, 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 had a couple of beers, he opted for mojitos.
The second participant We split starters – seafood rolls, steamed buns, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I believe he was too. Would he criticize me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and Spain. We connected through our love of the capital.
The big beef
The first participant I view migration like sprinkling 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 He used an analogy about seasoning. It would be odd to be if the government was choosing some ideal ethnic makeup of the country.
The first participant There are, sadly, individuals escaping oppression, but a lot of people arriving in the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who do not necessarily add significant value and can burden the benefit system. Nobody forces you to move to a different nation for opportunity, so you should only go if you are able to support yourself and your relatives.
The second participant We got lost with certain details. I don’t think it’s like you come over and are employed and then after five years you get 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, access to benefits is restricted. There is no special treatment for anybody. And concerning the recent changes, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it is astonishing to state: we desire your labor, but we don’t want you. I believe we have to have a certain level of compassion.
Sharing plate
Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unregulated markets. I am, too, but simultaneously, economic growth helps communities and should be encouraged.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that certain elements of the community – government, the press – benefit from stoking division. We did find common ground in basic principles and ethics.
Dessert and debate
The first participant Peter believes that since the UK 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; times are different, modern people were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Let’s say the UK was obliged to repay India, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is the UK in a position to do that? Certainly not.
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 weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the part that colonialism contributed to it. I hold that decolonization is not merely about signing a cheque, it ought to involve examining 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 talk to individuals regularly whose views are opposite 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 remained for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank some sweet Japanese wine. I didn’t persuade him of any point, but we each liked the meal, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with others in future.
