Ehh... The tide of popular opinion — and history — was beginning to turn against her by then. Call it the beginning of the end. But since when has popular = good? All popularity means is that someone is a popular leader. It doesn't mean they are any good. Many leaders are popular in their time, only to be looked upon less favorably with the hindsight of history. American President Calvin Coolidge is a good example of this. Highly popular in his time, he is now regarded as bad manager whose laissez-faire policies created the conditions that would lead to the Great Depression.
On the other hand, some of our greatest leaders were not always recognized as such in their time. Abraham Lincoln, for example, widely regarded as the greatest of American presidents, was an extremely polarizing figure in his day, with a large and vocal minority who outright despised him. He was never widely popular in his lifetime. It was only later that his greatness was recognized.
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan represent the British and American avatars of the same political phenomenon: the rise of the modern right wing in Anglo politics. The less well-known Brian Mulroney is the Canadian representative. In the United States, it was characterized by the dominance of two groups: the religious right and what came to be called "neocons." The religious angle was uniquely American, but otherwise this movement's aims were the same all over the globe: the tearing down of social safety structures and the privatization of the state.
Now, to someone who grew up in Romania, the phrase "privatization of the state" probably sounds pretty good. That is perfectly understandable — after all, what good has the state ever done for the people of Romania? I don't know much about the modern government, other than a vague understanding that it is a parliamentary democracy. I imagine they do they best they can, but communist dictatorship left a huge economic, social, and political mess to clean up. It can't be easy. And before that? I've read about Romania under Ceaușescu; it was one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. Like North Korea bad. I'm sure Draculea can speak to this with much greater knowledge and conviction. Suffice it to say that Romania under Ceaușescu was about as bad as a government can get.
And that's the thing: It's an extreme example. Even the worst government in the developed world is still orders of magnitude better than the government of Ceaușescu's Romania. I would take Thatcher or Reagan over Ceaușescu any day! It's all a matter of degrees.
