A Mucky Business with Tim Farron
Sep 17, 2026 · 29 min · 13 segments
This week, Tim's kicking off the conference series - over the next four episodes, he's sitting down with a member of each party having their conference this season. First up: Reform UK, whose…
Tim FarronHostStephen ReedGuest
What happens now? Well, as we said, on Friday, MPs voted by just 16 votes to reject the assisted dying bill.
This was the same legislation that had been passed by the Commons last year, but ran out of time in the House of Lords.
Many of the bill's proponents believe that a small number of peers had deliberately sabotaged that bill by tabling more than a thousand amendments.
The latest vote means that the bill will go no further in either house in this session.
I think one of the main reasons for the shift was the growing opposition and unease towards this bill from expert groups such as the Association of Palliative Care Doctors, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
There was also a deep concern, including from some MPs who support the principle of assisted dying, about a perceived high-handedness from the bill's movers.
They sought to steamroll the bill through the use of the Parliament Act without accepting any amendments that might have made it safer.
Whilst Keir Starmer was in favour of the proposal, Andy Burnham chose to abstain, having indicated that he wanted to see the postcode lottery of palliative care improved across the country before any law to legalise assisted dying could come about.
A number of Labour MPs who previously supported the bill stayed away from this vote, perhaps inspired by their new leader.
We seem to prize individual autonomy and choice above all, and many believe that we have the right to take control of the way we die.
Advocates for assisted dying are undoubtedly motivated by compassion for those facing intense suffering, as reflected in the number of personal and heartbreaking stories recounted by MPs in the debate.
However, this argument links someone's intrinsic worth to their abilities and capacity.
It does not safeguard those who are vulnerable, those without agency, or those subject to coercive control by others, or indeed by the small voice inside their own heads that says that they don't want to be a burden to anyone anymore.
At the heart of the assisted dying debate is the question of what it means to be human.
The discussion will not go away, and I believe the church needs to step up to be the champion of the voiceless and the vulnerable, and to demonstrate that every individual has immutable value right up to the very end of their lives.
What happens now? Well, as we said, on Friday, MPs voted by just 16 votes to reject the assisted dying bill.
This was the same legislation that had been passed by the Commons last year, but ran out of time in the House of Lords.
Many of the bill's proponents believe that a small number of peers had deliberately sabotaged that bill by tabling more than a thousand amendments.
The latest vote means that the bill will go no further in either house in this session.
I think one of the main reasons for the shift was the growing opposition and unease towards this bill from expert groups such as the Association of Palliative Care Doctors, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
There was also a deep concern, including from some MPs who support the principle of assisted dying, about a perceived high-handedness from the bill's movers.
They sought to steamroll the bill through the use of the Parliament Act without accepting any amendments that might have made it safer.
Whilst Keir Starmer was in favour of the proposal, Andy Burnham chose to abstain, having indicated that he wanted to see the postcode lottery of palliative care improved across the country before any law to legalise assisted dying could come about.
A number of Labour MPs who previously supported the bill stayed away from this vote, perhaps inspired by their new leader.
We seem to prize individual autonomy and choice above all, and many believe that we have the right to take control of the way we die.
Advocates for assisted dying are undoubtedly motivated by compassion for those facing intense suffering, as reflected in the number of personal and heartbreaking stories recounted by MPs in the debate.
However, this argument links someone's intrinsic worth to their abilities and capacity.
It does not safeguard those who are vulnerable, those without agency, or those subject to coercive control by others, or indeed by the small voice inside their own heads that says that they don't want to be a burden to anyone anymore.
At the heart of the assisted dying debate is the question of what it means to be human.
The discussion will not go away, and I believe the church needs to step up to be the champion of the voiceless and the vulnerable, and to demonstrate that every individual has immutable value right up to the very end of their lives.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.