When is it acceptable to speak ill of the dead?

Baroness Thatcher is proving to be as divisive in death as in power.  Eulogies from the right have been countered by condemnation from the left.  As they lowered the Union Flag to half mast over Number 10, there were street parties breaking out in Brixton.

Many Labour MPs chose to stay away from yesterday's debate

Born in 1987, I am a child of the Thatcher era and have no personal memories of her government, but have read enough to know that I disagree fundamentally with every policy she implemented.  Am I a terrible person if I detail the reasons why?  I would not have been four days ago.  I probably won’t be in four months' time. But is this week the right moment to be launching diatribes against her legacy?

Thatcher may have angered many of my parents’ generation, who hold her personally responsible for their financial suffering, but she was not evil.  A great number of people did - and still do - believe she was doing the right thing for the country. Her death does not mark the end of an oppressive dictatorship. She has not been in power in this country for over twenty years.  Democracy has had it say on her leadership and her party. There is no need to be popping champagne corks at her passing.

George Galloway invited harsh criticism when he tweeted "tramp the dirt down" in response to the news (a reference to an Elvis Costello song attacking the former PM).  The Daily Mail called it a "stunningly unpleasant tweet."  Galloway also added, regarding Thatcher's stance on Apartheid, "may she burn in hellfires."  There have celebrations in cities across the UK and it has been reported that the funeral may be interrupted by protesters.

The outpourings of hatred from some quarters has been described as ghoulish. Others feel that to hold back would be hypocritical.

To rejoice in another's death is macabre, despite what Owen Jones and others like him say. There are grieving friends and family to consider.  It is especially hypocritical for those opposed to the Thatcherite philosophy on the grounds that it lacked compassion.

Some Tories called the Labour boycott of yesterday’s debate an act of disrespect. But to portray Thatcher as a national figure, above politics and party, is both blatantly false, since she embodied partisanship, and highly offensive to the large proportion of the population who did not share her views.  Speaker John Bercow is reported to have been "taken aback" at the request to recall Parliament, particularly since similar action had not been taken in response to the death of James Callaghan, the last former prime minister to die during a recess.

It was absolutely fitting that David Cameron should have been able to pay tribute to a woman who served her country and whom he admired, but this could have been done on Monday.  Setting aside seven and a half hours to debate the motion of considering tributes, when the longest such previous session was 73 minutes (this for Ted Heath; Winston Churchill was given only an unassuming 45 minutes), could be seen as an abuse of free speech and an inappropriate use of the House of Commons, our nation’s most auspicious debating chamber.

However, under the circumstances, a boycott was the right thing to do. Ed Miliband had wanted as many of his MPs to attend as possible, but there were many who would not have wanted to “honour her personal achievements” or “pay tribute to her historic significance”, as Miliband and Shadow Public Health Minister Diane Abbott did, and to do so would have been hypocritical; the equivalent of rolling out those euphemisms reserved for the funerals of unpleasant elderly relatives. But nor was it right for Labour politicians to use the occasion to air vitriolic critiques of Thatcher, as backbencher Glenda Jackson did.

The Labour MPs who boycotted the debate made the correct decision. Tributes should be left to genuine admirers; criticism for another time. To stay silent is a mark of respect for the death of an individual; it does not have to signify respect for her record or her leadership.  Yes, it is acceptable to speak ill of the dead, especially when they were a public figure who made contentious decisions which had such a far-reaching impact on the lives of so many, but not at this juncture.

There will come a time when it is appropriate to debate the Thatcher legacy, but for now, her critics should stay silent and save the champagne and street parties for the moment when every person in the world is in possession of their human rights.