No government minister has a mandate to do what they like. The people can only vote for the least offensive manifesto offered, which in itself is just a list of what is claimed they might like to do, and to which no party is beholding. So the first lot of capitals are nonsense.
Few disagree that some unions were using the power they had gained over the years to 'flex muscles' and make demands that were not in the public interest. But they were not there representing all the public, they were getting the best for their members. That is how the market, something right wing thinking claims to honour, works. Each side demands what it wants and then negotiation comes up with the correct compromise. (Unless of course the supplier of labour is represented union who looks like they might want more than the buyer of labour and their powerful friends want.)
The fact is that any temporary imbalance of power in the UK was merely used as an excuse to pass legislation to make unions jump through unreasonable hoops before they can do anything, and thus pervert the employee/employer balance in favour of employers.
The landslide election was clearly a reaction to the previous government that allowed a situation to get out of balance; and who had no ideological reason to ignore playing fair and opt to just bash the unions that supported them instead. It was nothing to do with wanting a Conservative government to do whatever it liked.
Phrases like "utterly destroying the unions" put all too clearly what was intended and done. No sense of right or wrong, just smash the voice of the working class, the voice that had improved the lot of so many over the years. She had no blessing save from those who wanted the same 'class war' outcome. Domination of the few over the many, and they can just put up with it. A genuine desire to rebalance would have taken longer and been less dramatic.
Of course she destroyed them because of a class war, denial changes nothing. Too many folk lived through it and know to be able to rewrite history.
As for the Falklands, well credit where credit is due. Although even there, there are tales that British Intelligence had already highlighted the possibility of an invasion, and nothing was done to prevent it. However fair enough, the reaction to the invasion was as it had to be.
Frankly Thatcher took a country that was going through a temporary difficult period, and with her desire to union bah and her slavish trust in Monetarism screwed much of the economy, caused much pain to many people, and it has had to recover since. Which of course it would eventually do regardless, since to do little more than baton down the hatches, and spend little, is the usual right wing approach to difficult times; and even then things eventually improve. It eventually recovers, or has done so far.
I think those who feel we are any sort of major power since the last World War is looking through rose tinted spectacles at their country. To think the world is a safer place because of Thatcher is IMO delusion in the extreme. No one was terrified of her (save arguably the working classes). "Feared Britain" indeed, where do folks think up their claims ?
And don't forget that to win votes she demanded councils sell off to tenants the local council housing stock at knock down prices to folk, many of whom didn't realise the cost of maintenance anyway. The rest made a killing at the expense of all us taxpayers. And some actually claim this bribe was a good thing. As I recall councils were not even allowed to build more council property with the little they got from the sales.
Truly she was an awful Prime Minister for internal national matters, merely showing some talent when dealing with other countries, which is where she may have been better employed.