The third chart, spending against income, is an important one. It works pretty much like a household budget in principle.
Keynesian economics (Labour) focuses on increased earnings. If you had to pay for a new qualification in order to get a big pay rise, for instance, you'd consider it money well spent on balance - same if you were offered a new position on double your salary, but it meant you'd have to undertake an expensive house move or buy a wardrobe full of slick outfits.
Liberal monetarism (Conservative) looks at reducing expenditure before anything else. It would turn down the new job, working on the assumption you could save enough over time to reach the same financial status.
If the country were a small business, Labour would invest in new equipment or hire more staff in order to secure bigger contracts & earn more.
Conservatives would cut expenses to the bone, regardless of whether this limited your earning capacities.
Both approaches aim for a net profit in the end. Both can achieve it, but the experience of getting to that point is going to be very different. And the number of beneficiaries will be different, too - the Labour business has more employees doing well out of it, while the Conservative business only has a skeleton staff to share its revenues with.
Obviously none of our governments are pure Keynes or pure monetarist. But the one we have now is the most extreme right we've had since 1910.