A full or even partial electrical failure is, in my view, a good reason to pan and land.
Well I wouldn't want to be flying with you when we get a single generator failure and have to make a wholly unnecessary diversion.
The question remains...was it a complete electrical failure?
Not even close. The A320 uses an AC Essential Feed Bus to power the essential bits on the flight deck ie displays, standby AI, VHF1, Xponder1 etc. The essential bus is normally powered by AC bus 1, but can be manually switched to AC bus 2, and I think even the battery can power it via the emergency static inverter. It appears in this case that the link to AC1 failed, the flight deck went dark, the ECAM drills were actioned, which include switching the AC Ess feed to AC2 and the lights came back on again. Where is the big issue? There was no generator failure. There was no RAT deployment. There was no Emergency Electrical Configuration. The aircraft did pretty much as expected given the failure, with perhaps the exception of the VHF1 failure, and recovered pretty much as expected. The words mountains and molehills spring to mind here. Sure, lets have the AAIB investigate why some components which should have been powered were not, but the conspiritorial implications from some posters that the crew pressed on in an aircraft with seriously degraded performance due to commercial pressure is ludicrous.