It is hard to think of another occasion when a debate in parliament has been so toxic and acrimonious as MPs squared up over - what else - Brexit.

It was compelling viewing as Boris Johnson decided that attack is the best form of defence and had clearly worked out - or been advised - that to express any form of regret or contrition would make him look weak.

Did the debate plunge political discourse to new depths?

It is hard to think of another comparable occasion when a debate has been quite so combative and inflammatory.

Was some of the language over-the-top? Undoubtedly.

There is nothing wrong with politicians speaking candidly and forcefully.

Indeed, in an age where carefully crafted soundbites and scripted statements make many politicians sound robotic, there is something to be said for it.

Nigel Farage has traded on his plain-speaking to depict himself as outside the political establishment; the former Maidstone MP Ann Widdecombe was famously direct and voters responded to her plain-speaking.

It will be interesting to see what both think about yesterday’s debate at a rally in Maidstone this evening.

But for all that, there were times in yesterday’s debate when the exchanges went from being robust to just nasty.

When MPs receive death threats that echo the toxic language used in parliamentary debates, it is hard not to feel that a line has been crossed.

And there is a sense that we can expect more of the same in the coming weeks as the parties double down on their positions on Brexit.

Head to our politics page for expert analysis and all the latest news from your politicians and councils.

How is Brexit going to affect Kent? For all the latest news, views and analysis visit our dedicated page here.