Typically oversimplified narrative. There were real tailwinds behind the Thatcherite counter-revolution - her election came right at the tail end of an almost decade-long global crisis of capitalism. Thatcherism didn't happen in isolation, it was part of an international paradigm shift. Akehurst overlooks the fact that Callaghan still managed to lose in '79 despite shifting to the right and making the initial turn to monetarism; evidently it didn't do much to save his government. He also doesn't mention that his hero Kinnock moved the party to the right after the Foot years and then comfortably lost two elections despite largely cutting the grassroots members out of the policy-making process.
It's also worth looking at the record of other labour parties which were in government in the 1980s. The New Zealand Labour government of David Lange implemented a brutal programme of cutbacks and privatisations ("Rogernomics
") that was arguably more Thatcherite than Thatcher. And it does piss me off a bit that Foot's not much more than a figure of fun to some people. He had a grasp of history, culture and politics which the empty suits that Akehurst and his ilk fawn over could never hope to match.
Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.