I mean you like to call it neoliberal economics (as if its something new rather than a rebranding) and put a timeframe on it for a reason I'm not entirely sure of. But it's principles come largely from a well-known book from 1776. Or you can look further back to the French in the late 1600s for more of its roots. In fact, high government spending is actually the recent phenomenon. Prior to WW1 it was rarely above 15% of GDP.
However I wasn't aware time created literacy. Does that mean Keynes' theories were illiterate until a certain point. Marx the same? (Don't answer that, no amount of time will help that school of thought).
'A stimulus will only stimulate a deficit' proved to be quite true in the end. If you stimulate with balanced books, you de-stimulate elsewhere. Look at the 70s for a better example, it's no wonder Keynes was thrown out. Actually though, Keynes would have favoured fiscal policy of the last couple of years. In normal times, at trend growth, government should cut the deficit. Exactly what happened between 2013 and 2016.
Anyway, you seem to think it is more important to talk about the debt-gdp ratio so if we do that about government spending, it has remained about flat. Your terms, not mine.
'You'll also know' government borrowing crowds out private investment. And do we need to go over the parable of the broken window?
I don't see that the Conservatives have ever likened monetary policy to household income. Given that monetary policy could not be compared to household finances and is (largely) out of government hands, I will presume you mean government debt and the household fallacy that you love. Except it isn't a fallacy. Just like a household, government can only borrow if creditors continue to supply credit and believe the government will have enough future income to meet its debt obligations. It's the income constraint and absolutely no different to any normal household. Now of course, a government can increase its income as any household can. But as is similar to any household, its income increase is not unconstrained. Government's source of income is tax (confiscation of private individuals' income) and high taxes reduce the output that can be taxed and therefore decrease overall tax take. Some (fools) might argue well government can just print money. A)not true because the BoE is independent of government and B)if creditors thought government didn't have the tax income to meet obligations and would only receive fresh money, they would hike up interest rates and we'd end up in an inflationary spiral. The point is, government has an income constraint just the same as households do.