So basically destroying lives was OK was it? - Shows a lot of the people that supported her then and now, finding it acceptable.
Reforming of the issues of that particular society at that time could have, and should have been done with more consideration to the impacts on human lives. But of course that would have been at the expense of profits and that was the driving force behind her and her supporters then (and now). Bugger to society and balls to those who get hurt along the way.
Had she not defeated the Unions then Britain would have ended up as a third world economic basket case, but instead she battled and defeated them and in so doing turned the country's declining prospects around. Is it good that some people lost out as a result? No of course not, however had the Unions not fought to maintain their stranglehold on the UK economy there would have been no battle in the first place.
Your entiled to your opinion - but do you honestly beleive that ? - even in times of economic downturn the UK economy & infastructure is one of the strongest in the world - and you have to look at who profited from the upturn -
"Third world" was an embelishment on my part, but we were serious economic trouble and the Unions were literally strangling the country. It was an unavoidable battle, imo. Regarding the upturn, the majority of people benefited from it, despite the focus you'll find on this board on groups who did not in order to try and create a picture that is simply false. If the majority had not benefited then Mrs T would not have won crushing election victories throughout the 80's, would she?
Perception is everything - why were Satchi & Satchi hired ? - a poor opposition, the rise of the SDP , and the Falklands played a big part in those victories.
I'd add the fact that the most popular paper of the day, the bloody Sun, licked her ring and put an admiitedly weak Labour party down every day.