May forced for TV debate!

Good that the Harrow Times forced Theresa May to appear at the TV debate on June 2, joining Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
As we predicted her Harrow visit, Theresa May visited Dhamecha Lohana Centre in South Harrow today to reinforce targeting certain Asian community for votes.
Speaking in Harrow today, Theresa May, a Tory brand name for their presidential style election campaign, repeated “strong and stable” idiom along with usual divisiveness and scaremongering, “migration levels were having an impact on public services and low-paid workers” – immigration will definitely be in the 2017 Tory manifesto, due to be published next week.
Theresa May made that promise in 2010 and made the same promise in 2015, but didn’t get anywhere near it on any occasion at all. She, as home secretary, missed her targets for six years in a row.
Therefore, it is difficult to ignore the argument that since the financial crisis, migrants and refugees have repeatedly been blamed for the effects of economic stagnation and austerity. While in fact, migrants play an indispensable role in society and the economy, staffing crucial public services and contributing through the tax system.
The Harrow Times challenged Mrs May why she would not take part in the planned televised debates alongside other party leaders.
Theresa May obviously showed no interest in Harrow issues like the Tory government inflicted crisis that has serious  implications for Harrow in NHS, schools and police – for example, the impact of £400m cut in London police funding, £15m cut to Harrow schools and lowest level  of NHS funding per person in Harrow, threatening the local hospital and walk-in health centres; for example, the hospitals have to seek funding approval, sometimes unsuccessfully, from the starving Harrow Clinical Commissioning Group for many treatments/ operations.
Equally no interest  that Harrow East which fully supported the most racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, is still indulged in divisive play  – Harrow never had such a divisive MP like Bob Blackman before.
He was elected to represent all his constituents on equal footing but  having calculated his votes, he takes sides in otherwise harmonious communities – his ploy has been rejected by the leaders of the community concerned.