The worst standard of election debate ever?

I asked (post of 5 March) if standards of political debate were at an all time low. As usual, they are the lowest we have ever seen, at least since the last election (or referendum). David Smith thinks so, writing in The Times* that "There was something close to consensus last summer that we could not do much worse, when it came to intelligent debate, than the EU referendum. For the politicians, unfortunately, this election is proving that we can indeed do worse, and are." He notes that Carl Emmerson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that neither of the main parties is offering “an honest set of choices” to voters, and that it is a choice between the “undeliverable” (Tories) and the “unworkable” (Labour).

Smith himself is very downbeat about the medium term whoever wins: "We have had the Brexit devaluation, the Brexit downgrading of Britain’s sovereign debt rating and the Brexit increase in inflation. We are seeing the Brexit fall in real wages, which will drive the Brexit slowdown in the economy. The fantasy of a Brexit bonanza for the public finances, always a nonsense, will be replaced by the reality of larger budget deficits and increased government debt." That is leaving aside the huge task of negotiating Britain’s exit from the EU: Smith has said previously that he thinks Theresa May and her government are some way off the pace when it comes to the forthcoming EU negotiations.

And he doesn't like her policies much either: "There was the usual weak “industrial strategy” stuff and the flannel, perilously close to Labour’s campaign slogan, of running the economy for the many and not just the “privileged few”. The many, it should be noted, are enjoying record employment, and inequality was falling long before Mrs May became prime minister. It is likely to rise again over the next few years. On immigration, meanwhile, the approach of her government, including the “tens of thousands” net migration target, increased costs for employers of taking on non-EU nationals and tougher controls of legitimate students, smacks more of Prisoner Cell Block H than the openness favoured by many Brexiteers and non-Brexiteers alike."

But the alternative is no more appealing: "Labour’s programme, intended to appeal to its core support and prevent an election whitewash, would be economic sabotage if ever implemented. If you were designing a set of policies to ensure that the economy suffers even more than necessary in the wake of Brexit it would be hard to beat Labour’s signature tax pledges......On the basis of these, Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin will be rooting for a Corbyn victory, as will every location in the EU keen to grab some of the foreign direct investment previously claimed by Britain, and to attract some of that driven out of Britain by punitive and ill-judged tax policies."

Smith asks if there any reason to be optimistic. "With Labour, probably not. With Mrs May’s Tories, the hope has to be that they are diverted away from some of the dafter interventions and controls. But if the best you can wish for is that parties do not carry out their promises, it confirms that this is a bad election."

I'm writing this while Mishal Husain is struggling to stop seven dwarves shouting each other down in the BBC election debate while Snow White, or should that be the wicked queen, stays in her lair. From what I saw, I enjoyed Tim Farron's contributions the most. At least he made me laugh. Mind, he has the liberty of not having to appear prime-ministerial (which could be difficult for him anyway). I don't know whether humour will have helped the Lib Dem vote, though I had been looking forward to having a chuckle at Diane Abbott until Corbyn pulled rank - not surprisingly after his competent showing against the clearly past his sell by date and out of practice Paxman a few days ago. Though if I was Labour I'd have fielded the terrifyingly plausible John McDonnell, the thought of whom as chancellor reminds me that this isn't about laughs.

I enjoy following politics but even I am thinking "roll on June the 8th".

*The choice at this election does nothing to inspire economic hope, David Smith in The Times, 31 May 2017. Unfortunately you have to be a Times subscriber to read the full article.