Hugo, a 21-year-old Conservative party social media manager from Birmingham, and William, a 39-year-old transport psychology researcher who usually votes Labour or Green, met for a meal as part of the Dining Across the Divide series. Their conversation covered contentious topics including Palestine Action and the pension triple lock, with William admitting he changed his view on the latter.
First Impressions and Background
Hugo described William as "a really reasonable, nice guy" and praised his transport research as "really respectable, useful stuff." William, surprised to meet a young committed Conservative, found Hugo "very articulate" and knowledgeable about policies. Hugo ordered buttermilk chicken tenders, fish and chips, and a chocolate soufflé, while William had prawn cocktail and fish and chips at The Old Joint Stock pub in Birmingham.
The Biggest Disagreement: Palestine Action
Their "spiciest disagreement" centered on Palestine Action, a group that targets companies involved in Israel's military operations. Hugo argued the group is a terrorist organization, citing the recent sentencing of four members who attacked a policewoman with a sledgehammer. "If the courts are saying it is, if politicians are saying it is, then it is," Hugo stated. He emphasized that objections should be expressed at the ballot box, not with violence.
William countered that the sentences—at least four years and eight months—were harsh, as the activists were destroying military goods funded by public money that they believed were used in a genocide. Both agreed the situation in Gaza constitutes a genocide. William suggested the activists should have received community service or, ironically, military service instead of prison.
Shifting Views on the Triple Lock
Hugo raised moral issues with the pension triple lock, arguing it disproportionately benefits the wealthiest generation while young families and graduates struggle. He stated, "I'm not even counting on having a pension," advocating for a less expensive alternative and investment elsewhere. William noted that Hugo's perspective was not selfish but focused on broader societal good. "I didn't realise the triple lock was so expensive, and now I'm not sure it is viable," William admitted, indicating a change in his view.
Rwanda Scheme and Human Rights
Hugo defended the Rwanda asylum scheme as a popular policy hampered by the European Court of Human Rights, advocating for a British bill of rights. William acknowledged the policy's popularity but stressed the need for an international guardian of inalienable rights, cautioning that popular opinion is not always best for the population.
Takeaways and Connection
Hugo noted that William realized the Conservative party's positions were closer to his own beliefs than he had thought, a point Hugo felt proud of. William described Hugo as "a gentleman," and they connected on LinkedIn after the meal.
