The Niall Boylan Podcast (They Told Me To Shut Up)

Niall speaks to Independent Ireland TD Ken O’Flynn about the Government approved decision to award ESB chief executive Paddy Hayes a pay increase of almost €92,000, bringing his annual salary to €410,000.
The increase of 29 per cent was approved by Public Expenditure Minister Jack Chambers following a recommendation from Energy Minister Darragh O’Brien. ESB says the salary reflects the scale and complexity of the organisation and points out that it is the first increase in the chief executive’s salary since 2011. The company reported revenues of €6.73 billion and a pre tax profit of almost €750 million for 2025. Its most recently published detailed liquidity figures also showed approximately €3.1 billion available, including around €1.5 billion in cash and short term deposits, although much of ESB’s funding is required for major investment in electricity networks, renewable energy and infrastructure.
The pay rise comes as a record 322,298 households are in arrears on their electricity bills, representing around 14 per cent, or one in seven, of all domestic electricity customers. More than 186,000 households have been behind on their bills for over 90 days, while the average amount owed has risen to €515.77. A further 185,940 households are in arrears on their gas bills. The latest figures are the highest recorded by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities since its current records began in late 2022.
Niall asks Ken O’Flynn whether it is justifiable to award such a substantial increase to the head of a State owned company while hundreds of thousands of families are struggling to pay for a basic necessity. Is the Government doing enough to reduce electricity prices, should energy credits be restored, and should assistance be targeted directly at households already falling into debt?
With electricity prices still substantially higher than they were before the energy crisis and the colder months approaching, what practical action can the Government take to prevent even more families from being pushed into arrears, threatened with disconnection or forced to choose between heating their homes and paying for other essentials?

Niall speaks to financial commentator Karl Deeter about whether Ireland should introduce compulsory voting and require every eligible citizen to participate in elections.
The debate has recently emerged in Britain after Jacob Rees-Mogg said compulsory voting appeared to be becoming a new political battleground, with the idea reportedly supported by think tanks close to Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Rees-Mogg does not fully endorse the proposal, but argues that it is not automatically unreasonable for the State to impose certain civic duties. He compares voting with jury service, where citizens can be legally required to participate for the broader good of society.
Compulsory voting already exists in various forms around the world. Australia has required eligible citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections since 1924, with people who fail to vote without a valid reason potentially receiving a modest fine. Turnout at Australian federal elections has generally remained above 90 per cent. Belgium, Brazil, Argentina, Luxembourg and several other countries also have laws requiring electoral participation, although enforcement and penalties vary considerably. In some countries the requirement is strictly enforced, while in others it exists largely on paper.
Supporters argue that compulsory voting produces governments with a stronger democratic mandate because election results reflect the views of almost the entire electorate, rather than only those who are motivated enough to turn up. They say it could reduce political inequality, as people on lower incomes and younger citizens are often less likely to vote voluntarily. It might also encourage political parties to communicate with the entire population instead of concentrating their efforts on reliable supporters and narrow groups of swing voters.
There is also an argument that voting should be viewed as a civic responsibility, similar to paying taxes or attending jury service. Under this model, nobody would be forced to support a particular candidate. Voters could still spoil their ballot, submit a blank ballot or select a formal “none of the above” option, preserving the right to reject every candidate while still participating in the democratic process.
Critics, however, argue that the right to vote must also include the right not to vote. They say forcing people to attend a polling station turns a democratic freedom into a legal obligation and could result in citizens voting randomly, carelessly or without understanding the issues. Opponents also question whether people should be fined for political disengagement, particularly if they feel that no party or candidate represents them.
There are practical questions too. Would people with illnesses, caring responsibilities or difficulties reaching polling stations be exempt? Would the penalty be a warning, a small fine or something more serious? Would compulsory voting unfairly affect poorer citizens, and would the cost of enforcing it outweigh the democratic benefit?
Ireland already uses proportional representation and allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, but participation remains voluntary. The Electoral Commission is currently examining the factors that influence turnout and political participation, although compulsory voting would represent a major change in how Ireland understands the relationship between citizens and the State.
Niall asks Karl whether compulsory voting would strengthen democracy by ensuring that every section of society is heard, or whether forcing people to participate would undermine the freedom elections are supposed to protect.
Should voting be considered a basic civic duty? Should people be permitted to spoil their ballot rather than choose a candidate? Would compulsory voting force politicians to represent people who currently feel ignored, or would it simply produce millions of reluctant and uninformed votes?
And should the Government concentrate instead on restoring trust in politics and giving people a reason to vote, rather than threatening them with a fine for staying at home?

Should children be paid for helping around the house, or should chores simply be part of family life?
In this episode, Niall speaks to callers about whether pocket money should be linked to jobs such as tidying bedrooms, washing dishes, taking out the bins, hoovering or helping with the laundry. Some parents believe paying children for chores teaches responsibility, encourages a strong work ethic and helps them understand the value of money. It can also introduce young people to saving, budgeting and the idea that rewards usually come through effort.
Others argue that children are members of the household and should contribute without expecting to be paid every time they lift a finger. They believe ordinary chores teach independence, consideration and the importance of helping the family without constantly asking, “What do I get for it?”
Perhaps there is a middle ground. Everyday jobs such as making the bed or clearing the table could be expected, while larger tasks like washing the car, cutting the grass, cleaning windows or doing extra work could earn a few euro.
Do you pay your children for chores? Does it teach them the value of hard work, or does it create a generation that expects payment for every small contribution? Niall hears from parents, grandparents and callers with very different views on pocket money, household responsibilities and what children should be expected to do.

US President Donald Trump now appears almost certain to visit Ireland for at least two days in September, with preparations already under way for a major security operation. Trump is expected to arrive around 12 September and attend the Irish Open at his golf resort in Doonbeg, County Clare, where he hopes to watch Rory McIlroy compete. The visit is also expected to include engagements in Dublin and a possible meeting with Taoiseach Micheál Martin, although the trip is not currently being treated as a formal State visit.
The political battle has already begun. Labour MEP Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has declared that Trump is “not welcome” in Dublin and says the red carpet should not be rolled out, while protests are expected from several political and activist groups. However, others argue that personal dislike of Trump should not be allowed to damage Ireland’s relationship with its largest trading and investment partner. American companies support hundreds of thousands of Irish jobs, while Ireland’s economic prosperity remains heavily dependent on foreign investment.
In this episode, Niall speaks to journalist John McGuirk from The Statement about the growing controversy. Should Ireland offer Donald Trump an official State welcome, regardless of political differences? Are Irish politicians entitled to declare that the democratically elected American President is not welcome? Could public hostility towards Trump risk damaging jobs, investment and Ireland’s vital relationship with the United States?
Do you welcome President Trump to Ireland, or should the Government tell him to stay away?

Don’t Call Me Darling with Niall and Karen Boylan is the podcast where a husband and wife give their honest, unfiltered opinions on the stories, relationship dilemmas and social issues that affect us all.
Nothing is off the table, and this week’s episode covers everything from hookers and paternity fraud to the far more important question of whether Niall and Karen would like to own a baby goat.
They also tackle some of the arguments and awkward questions that come up in almost every relationship. Should married couples sleep in separate bedrooms to avoid snoring and duvet stealing? Should couples share their phone passwords, or is everyone entitled to some privacy? Is it acceptable to return a present you secretly hate, and should you ever tell your partner that their outfit looks terrible?
Niall and Karen also debate whether surprise parties are actually cruel, whether backseat driving should be grounds for divorce, and whether couples should reveal their full sexual history or simply accept that the past is the past.
It is honest, intriguing, occasionally uncomfortable and full of laughs as Niall and Karen disagree, overshare and say the things most couples are probably thinking but would never dare say out loud.