We stabilised the economic system immediately. Then for the long run, we stabilised the public finances. And we achieved modest economic growth. But our productivity growth flatlined. And our society divided rather than united.
We didn't 'stabilize the economy', George Osborne and the tories crashed it. And proved that cutting state spending, far from being a prerequisite for growth, actually stalled it. As well as leading to poverty, unemployment and people desperately taking micky mouse, zero hours jobs just to keep their heads above water. No wonder there was a drop in productivity.
While ever the CBI and 'business leaders' fail to recognise that state spending can drive growth, and cling to neo-liberal 'trickle down' theory we will get nowhere.
Mind you, tories are in a bind at the moment, it's state spending that is keeping the country afloat though it goes completely against the Chancellor's instincts.
None of our main parties have declared their fulsome support for public services balanced with a regulated market economy at any time in the recent past.
I think that Labour did try, but all the cards were stacked against them. People are so deeply attached to the 'household economy' myth promoted by Thatcher (despite most economists shouting, 'NO, it isn't like that'), backed up by the media, that it might take a major shift in belief to get them to vote for parties that understand, even imperfectly, that it isn't so.
And Brexit doesn't help...
Incidentally, I saw an interesting comment recently to the effect that when Adam Smith (thatcher's economist hero) spoke of 'free markets', he wasn't talking of an unregulated trading free for all, but of markets 'free from rentiers'; rentiers being people who don't trade in produce, but who make their money by speculating on the money markets and charging people for the use of their assets (land, houses etc).
Adam Smith was much more 'moral' than he's been made out to be..