"Given Thatcher's fondness for what she regarded as "Victorian values", it is not surprising that the press is full of alleged historical parallels. When Conor Burns declares that "she was a laissez-faire, Gladstonian liberal, in the proudest traditions of the Gladstonian Liberal party" (Old political wounds reopened and kindnesses remembered, 11 April), he is widely echoed by both left and right. There is a grain of truth in the comparison. The argument is that she rolled back the frontiers of the state in a way which was consistent with Gladstone's vision and achievements in office, particularly between 1853 and 1885, when he managed to reduce central government costs despite a considerable growth in the UK population and wealth.
However, the aims and policies of these two leaders diverged radically. Gladstone cut military expenditure, which Thatcher expanded by 50%. The contraction of the state over which he presided was more than compensated by the growth of local-authority functions and related costs - both of which he encouraged. By contrast, Thatcher demonised local government and undermined its autonomy. It was Gladstonian legislation which conferred on trade unions the privileged status Thatcher demolished from 1981. Last but not least, he fostered the rise of a professional, "public-sector" ethos in administration, government and education, in contrast to the Thatcherite idea that market values and mechanisms provide universally applicable criteria for rational choice.
Eugenio F Biagini
Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge"
And several other missives that could be of interest...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/14/thatcher-funeral-says-about-britain