Miliband managed to pay tribute to Thatcher, whilst remaining critical. He’s a better man than me

Ed Miliband had an unenviable task in the Commons today. His politics are quite different from those of Margaret Thatcher – that is a clear understatement – and his speech, as many had noted this morning, would struggle to achieve the right tone. In the end he crossed the hurdle with relative comfort and grace.

Miliband focused on the personal acheivements of the former Prime Minister, rising from being the daughter of a grocer to the highest office in the land, getting into Oxford and becoming an MP – then a cabinet minister – when women simply didn’t do those things (though the fact that the debate on Thatcher was 2 hours old before a female MP spoke today shows that the grass ceiling might have a few cracks in it, but it is far from shattered). He also noted where Thatcher was right – including a pointed reference to her understanding of the dangers of climate change.

Yet alongside commemorating Thatcher’s personal achievements, Miliband didn’t shy away from criticism. The damage to mining communities (like the one he represents), Section 28 and judgements she made about Nelson Mandela and sanction in South Africa were wrong. They were unequivocally wrong. And Miliband was right – and honest to himself and his party – by saying so. I would have understood (but been somewhat disappointed) if he had balked at including such lines. It is a credit to him that he did

Crucially though, Miliband did something that I could not bring myself to day (as I said earlier this week) – he paid tribute to Margaret Thatcher. I’m afraid the words would have in all likelihood stuck in my throat. But although I am sure – certain even – that Ed Miliband feels at least as strongly about the legacy of the “Iron Lady” as I do, he managed to meet the occasion with the kind of speech that was worthy of the office of opposition leader (or Prime Minister). He’s a better man than me.

Yet although I thought Miliband’s speech was a well crafted, fair and truthful response to a complex and difficult situation, I can’t and won’t criticise those who felt that they should stay away, or those who rise in the chamber to criticise her record. I’ll have no truck for those who would crow and celebrate her demise – not least because there’s little to celebrate, her legacy lives on – nor those who would make personal attacks, rather than the political. But those who stand and raise their objections to her legacy, and the impact on their constituencies, should be given a fair hearing – and not just because they hold legitimate, heartfelt and passionate views. It would be wrong to silence or ignore those voices. It would cheapen our democracy. And it would hardly be fitting to remember such a combative and outspoken politician by allowing only praise – not criticism – to be heard in the house today.

She would have expected nothing less – and neither will the constituents of so many of our MPs.