How does an emotional response demonstrate a misunderstanding of democracy? I'm not going to go into the Thatcher particulars because I don't know enough of the details to make a good point, but look at the current government. The Lib Dems getting into "power" had a lot to do with the student vote, based on the mandate they set out during the election. Fast forward a bit and policies completely limiting and destroying the student population are being put into place, on the back of the students who "voted" for this government. They understand democracy, but what they get is not what they voted for, and people have every right to be pissed off about that.
Thatcher was the policy and the party, hating both of those go hand in hand with hating the woman herself, in the same way that a large part of the current generation despise Cameron / Clegg. The emotional response is largely produced because what is promised with democracy and what a large portion of the population get are two very different things.
Also "excluding certain groups for the benefit of the entire country" is an atrocious way to do things; especially when those groups are still feeling the effects today, and large parts of the country have been brought to their knees because of it.
Anyway this is a pointless argument - it's just opinions anyway. I doubt yours will change and I know mine certainly want, so lets just agree to disagree !!
