If you sat through the entire spending review speech delivered by Rachel Reeves in the House of Commons, you might have been lulled into a sense that the UK was awash with a wealth of riches as the chancellor sprinkled billions across the land.

There were billions for social housing, nuclear power stations, rail lines and research and development to power the economy.

There was money for schools, the police, the NHS, and defence spending, as the chancellor sketched out her roadmap for Britain for years to come, with an acknowledgement that the government – and particularly this chancellor – had endured a difficult first year.

“We are renewing Britain. But I know that too many people in too many parts of our country are yet to feel it…the purpose of this spending review is to change that,” she said.

Politics Hub: Tap here for the latest news

There was £113bn of borrowing to fund capital investment and an extra £190bn over the course of the parliament for public services, fuelled by those contentious tax rises in the budget last autumn. This was a Labour chancellor turning her back on austerity.

“In place of decline, I choose investment. In place of retreat, I choose national renewal,” she said.

The chancellor deserves credit for the capital investment, which she hopes will unlock jobs and power economic growth. But when something sounds too good to be true, it normally is.

For me, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell hit the nail on the head on Wednesday night as he remarked rather wryly to me that “the greater the applause on the day, the greater the disappointment by the weekend”.

Could tax hikes be needed?

Because, in talking up the prospect of national renewal, the chancellor glossed over what the “hard choices” mean for all of us.

There are questions now swirling about where the cuts might fall in day-to-day budgets for those departments which are unprotected, with local government, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Department for Environment all facing real-terms cuts.

My colleague Ed Conway, analysing the government figures, found cuts in the schools budget for the last two years of this parliament – the chancellor’s top line figure showed an overall rise of 0.6% over the five-year period of this Labour government.

There are questions too over whether council tax bills might be increased in order to top up local government and police budgets.

Ms Reeves told me in an interview after her speech that they won’t, but she has predicated increases in police funding and local government funding coming locally, rather than from central government, so I will be watching how that will play out.

Even with the increase in health spending – the NHS is getting a 3% boost in its annual budget – there are questions from health experts whether it will be enough for the government to hit a routine operations target of treating 92% of patients within 18 weeks.

My point is that this might not be – to again quote Mr McDonnell – “mathematical austerity”, but after over a decade where public dissatisfaction in public services has grown, the squeeze of day-to-day spending could make it hard for the chancellor to persuade working people this is a government delivering the change for them.

There is pressure to reverse some of the welfare cuts, and pressure to lift the two-child benefit cap, while the pressure to reverse the winter fuel allowance has already resulted in Reeves this week making a £1.25bn unfunded spending commitment (she will set out how she is paying for it at the next budget).

Will voters feel the ‘renewal’?

Reeves told me on Wednesday there was no need for tax rises in the autumn because the spending envelope had already been set, and the money now divvied out. It’s a very live question as to whether that can hold if the economy weakens.

She did not rule out further tax rises when I asked her last week, while Treasury minister Emma Reynolds told my colleague Ali Fortescue on Wednesday night: “I’m not ruling it in, I’m not ruling it out.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

The gamble is that, by investing in infrastructure and getting spades in the ground, and tilting limited public money into the NHS, the government can arrive at the next election with enough ‘proof points’ to persuade voters to stick with them for another five years.

On Wednesday, the chancellor laid the foundations she hopes will turn the government’s fortunes around. The risk is that voters won’t feel the same by the time they are asked to choose.

There are few issues more controversial, more divisive.

Assisted dying polarises opinion.

But it’s a difficult conversation that needs to be had because ultimately death affects us all.

Even if you are fortunate enough to never be directly impacted by an assisted death you will almost certainly be indirectly affected if the End of Life Bill passes into law.

It would be the biggest social change to British society many of us would ever see in our lifetimes.

And after patients and their immediate families, it’s the country’s doctors who will be the most affected by any change in the law.

Like society, the medical community is divided on the issue.

One senior doctor said: “It’s like Brexit, but worse.”

Another told me: “Emotions are running high”.

These are the milder, reportable comments.

There is bitterness and mistrust. The deep-rooted anger leads to each side accusing the other of deliberately spreading misinformation, “what-iffery” and “shenanigans” in the lead-up to the final vote next week.

We asked two senior doctors to share their views on assisted dying with us and each other.

Dr Mark Lee is a consultant in palliative care.

“I have worked in this field for 25 years and looked after thousands of patients at the end of their lives. I am against the assisted dying bill because I believe it poses risks to patients, to families, to doctors and to palliative care.”

‘We can get this right’

Dr Jacky Davis is a consultant radiologist and a campaigner for assisted dying legislation in this country.

One of the arguments put forward by opponents of assisted dying is that Britain ranks highest among countries in its delivery of palliative care. And there is no need for such a radical change in end of life care.

It is not an argument Dr Davis accepts.

She said: “The status quo at the moment means a number of people are dying bad deaths every day. 300 million people around the world have access to assisted dying and more legislation is in the pipeline and no place that has taken up a law on assisted dying has ever reversed it. So we can learn from other places, we can get this right, we can offer people a compassionate choice at the end of life.”

Read more:
MPs criticise Esther Rantzen’s intervention
Assisted dying law ‘unworkable’ and ‘naive’

Most deaths in palliative care ‘peaceful’

Dr Lee accepts palliative care has its limitations but this is a result of underfunding. This national conversation, he argues, is an opportunity to address some of those failings and improve end of life care.

“I think the NHS currently is not resourcing the situation enough to be able to provide the patients with the choice that they need to get the care that they needed and that is because they are not getting the choice and because palliative care is patchy. But in my day-to-day work, and I’ve worked in palliative care for 25 years, normal death is peaceful, comfortable, and does not involve people dying in pain.”

“I absolutely agree with Mark,” Dr Davis responded. “The vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and do not have the need for an assisted death. And I absolutely am with him that palliative care in this country has been treated abysmally. Nobody should have to hold a jumble sale in order to fund a hospice. That’s terrible.

“What I didn’t hear from Mark is, while the vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and have got nothing to fear facing death, there are people who have diagnoses where they know that they are likely to face a difficult death and will face a difficult death.

“What are you offering to the people who aren’t going to die a peaceful death? And what are you offering to people who are so afraid that that’s going to happen that they will take their own lives or will go abroad to seek an assisted death?”

Concerns about pressure on NHS

One important voice that has been missing from the national assisted dying debate is that of the NHS.

Senior leaders will not speak on the issue until the fate of the bill is decided. And its understandable why. It is not clear what role the health service would have if the bill passes.

Dr Lee warned that his NHS colleagues were “extremely worried”, going further to say assisted dying would “break the NHS”.

He added, that the country’s already under-pressure hospice sector would struggle to cope with staff “walking away from the job if they are forced to be involved in any way”.

Dr Davis refuses to accept these warnings, arguing that the challenge to the health service is being overstated.

“I think it’s really important to take a step back and say this would be a very small number of deaths. And this is very small in terms of the other things that are coming through big drug discoveries, big new surgeries, all the rest of it this would be very small in terms in terms of money.”

The two doctors did agree on one thing. That every patient is entitled to a pain free and dignified death.

Dr Lee said: “I look at the whites of the eyes of people every day with that. I stand in that place every day. And that is shameful that anyone in this day and age should die in that position. Jacky and I can agree on that. That is unacceptable. But it still doesn’t justify the response that we meet suffering with killing someone, rather than addressing the needs that are in front of us.”

Dr Davis responded by saying: “You say you’ve looked in the whites of patients’ eyes at the end, and I’d say looking into the whites of patients eyes and listening to what they’re asking for when they’ve been offered everything that you can offer them and they’re still saying, ‘I’ve had enough’, then we should follow the example of other countries and say, ‘we will help you’.”

These are the two very divided opinions of two NHS doctors, but these are the same arguments that will be taking place in hospitals, hospices, offices, factories and living rooms across the country.

In about a week’s time, it will be down to the politicians to decide.

Here we go again.

It was not long after 8pm when a police announcement over a tannoy mounted on their armoured vehicles reverberated around for all to hear.

“Force is about to be used against violent individuals,” blasted from the speakers as locals, some masked, stood waiting for action.

“You better be filming this,” one man said as we captured the scenes for Sky News amid a growing sense from locals that the police were being heavy handed in their tactics.

And then officers, holding their shields, surged forward as people edged back.

The move seemed to further anger the residents who had gathered, almost goading them as tensions ran high.

The pace of clashes was slower on this, the third night of conflict. But it was nevertheless just as ugly and messy.

Eyewitness: It is hard to see where the violence will end

Soon came the baton rounds, the firebombs, the water cannon. Those pelting the police seemed unfazed as they were battered with plastic bullets in return. The watching crowd cheered the rioters on.

Police chiefs earlier defended their operation. A senior officer insisted he did have “a grip” on the unravelling situation when questioned by Sky News.

The increased presence of officers was felt on the ground and was clear to see. The soundtrack of sirens swirled around this town once again as police lurched from incident to incident as pockets of violence flared up.

Officers are on their way from Scotland, England and Wales to help bolster resources. And they won’t be short of work.

A leisure centre 25 minutes away in Larne came under attack on Wednesday evening after it emerged some of the foreign families fleeing the Ballymena chaos were being temporarily held there.

A short drive around Ballymena’s one way road system takes you on a journey through housing estates where people have flooded the streets with union jack flags and stuck yellow A4 sheets to their windows with the words, “LOCALS LIVE HERE”.

These colourful displays are being seen as a public noticeboard of the nationality of the occupants inside each home. A deterrent to make the angry mob to look elsewhere.

And those failing to advertise whether they are a ‘native’ or not seem to be paying a price.

I witnessed an upper floor flat with a window smashed, the guttering on fire and the ground outside ablaze. An older neighbour fled her home downstairs in her dressing gown.

Earlier in the day two Romanian women were frantically examining their phones down an alleyway as their kids played on the trampoline in the garden.

They were terrified and were bundling their belongings in the car and leaving for good.

A sizeable chunk of people born in Ballymena are angry. They do not like the talk from police and politicians that taking to the streets following an alleged sex attack on a teenage girl equates to them being “racist thugs”.

They see this as an act of venting their feelings. And they are hellbent on continuing this campaign of carnage across Northern Ireland to ensure they prove their point.