Joe, a 32-year-old agricultural engineer from Cambridge who voted Green in the last election, and Phill, a 58-year-old stairlift surveyor from Hertfordshire who plans to vote Restore Britain, met over a curry at Mitr restaurant in Royston, Hertfordshire. Despite their political differences, they found common ground on small-boat crossings, but disagreed sharply on immigration and foxhunting.
First impressions and shared values
Phill admitted he was better dressed than Joe, who had come straight from an agricultural show. Joe, an immigrant from China who arrived in the UK at age four and grew up on a council estate, said they talked about their lives. Phill, who is about to celebrate his silver wedding anniversary and has two sons at university, said: “Joe’s a nice chap. I didn’t think, oh God, he’s a lefty – I don’t judge people like that.”
The meal began with a sharing board of dal, lamb and chicken curries, which Joe described as “beautiful”. Phill washed his down with a pint of cider.
Political clashes: Greens vs Restore Britain
Joe explained he voted Green because he was impressed by their manifesto, particularly on housing: “There are many vacant properties that could be converted in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way.” Phill was dismissive, calling Green politician Zack Polanski “a raving idiot” and saying their policies are uncosted. He predicted the next election would be “Greens v Reform” and expressed hope that Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe might do a deal with Nigel Farage, though he added: “I don’t trust Farage – he’s very establishment, a showman like Boris, but not as likable.”
Joe countered that Green economic policies are not unrealistic, and criticised Lowe’s website: “It seems to talk about immigrants and non-British people almost exclusively, which in my mind is insufficient policy to run a country.” Phill responded that the country is “in a lot of trouble, particularly with immigration” and claimed too many people are on benefits who shouldn’t be.
Foxhunting: a surprising point of discussion
They discussed foxhunting, with Phill strongly in favour and Joe more on the fence. Phill argued it should never have been banned, calling it “wildlife management” and claiming that since the ban, “there has been something like a third less foxes in the countryside”. Joe said he could see the economic benefit and added, “from the videos I’ve seen, the intention isn’t to cruelly kill the fox”. Joe even asked if he could come along to a hunt, though he lacks a horse and dogs.
Immigration: agreement and disagreement
They agreed immigration is necessary but differed on the type. Phill wants a temporary halt to “sit back and look what’s happening to the country”, then restart with “the right people who are going to do something for the country rather than take, take, take”. Joe agreed small-boat crossings are a problem, but focused on the danger and money going to traffickers. He felt Phill generalised from a small minority to the larger immigrant population, and noted: “We didn’t discuss whether I was a good immigrant.”
Final takeaways
Phill said Joe wasn’t what he expected from “a mad lefty – he’s well mannered, a family man, a decent chap”. Joe said Phill didn’t change his mind on anything, “but he is a great person – interesting, personable, charming”. He added: “Because I’d parked further away, he gave me a lift to my car.”
