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

Niall talks to Eric Nelligan School Teacher about the fact more than two thirds of parents say they are worried about the cost of school uniforms this year, according to Barnardos’ Back to School Survey 2026.
The online survey gave 704 parents the opportunity to share their concerns about the financial pressures they face as children return to school this autumn.
Some people believe school uniforms should be abolished. They argue that uniforms are outdated, unnecessarily expensive and restrict students from expressing their individuality.
Others say uniforms are essential because they remove visible differences between children from different financial backgrounds and help create a sense of equality and belonging.
Should school uniforms be abolished, or do they still serve an important purpose?
For many families, the cost is not simply a jumper, a shirt and a pair of trousers. Schools can insist on branded crests, specific suppliers, particular jackets, sportswear, shoes and PE kits. Once several children are involved, the bill can quickly run into hundreds of euro.
Parents may also find themselves replacing uniforms during the year because children grow out of them, damage them or lose items. At a time when families are already dealing with rising food, energy, transport and housing costs, is it reasonable for schools to insist on expensive branded clothing?
But what is the alternative?
Would allowing children to wear their own clothes genuinely save parents money, or would it create a new kind of pressure to buy fashionable brands, designer runners and the latest trends?
Uniforms may hide some financial differences, but children are not blind. They can still see who has the expensive phone, the newest shoes or the best schoolbag.
Do uniforms really create equality, discipline and school pride, or are they simply an outdated tradition that places another unnecessary expense on parents?
We want to hear from parents, teachers and students today.
Should schools be required to offer cheaper, generic uniform options? Should crests be removable so clothes can be bought in ordinary shops? Should schools operate second hand uniform schemes?
Or should we go further and abolish school uniforms entirely?
Give us a call and tell us what you think.

Niall speaks to Councillor Gavin Pepper and a local resident from Scribblestown about controversial plans to build a new town at Dunsink in north Dublin.
Fingal County Council’s draft Dunsink Urban Area Plan proposes the construction of 18,500 homes for a population of more than 46,000 people on over 1,000 acres of land beside Finglas, Ashtown, Castleknock and Blanchardstown. Most of the homes would be apartments, with some buildings reaching up to 15 storeys.
However, Uisce Éireann has warned that the full development cannot proceed unless two enormous infrastructure projects are completed: the €6 billion Shannon to Dublin water supply project and the €1.3 billion Greater Dublin Drainage Project.
While the first phase of approximately 2,500 homes could be supported through local upgrades, the remaining 16,000 homes would depend on new water and wastewater infrastructure that may not be operational for several years.
Hundreds of local residents have submitted objections, raising concerns about traffic congestion, pressure on schools and public services, excessive building heights, the loss of recreational facilities and possible health and environmental risks associated with developing land beside the former Dunsink landfill.
Supporters argue that Dublin urgently needs housing and that Dunsink is one of the largest undeveloped areas remaining inside the M50. Opponents question whether it makes sense to approve a town of this scale before the roads, water supply, sewage capacity and essential public services are firmly in place.
Is Dunsink an essential solution to Dublin’s housing crisis, or is the State attempting to build an entire town before the necessary infrastructure exists? And are the concerns of existing communities being properly heard, or are local objections preventing much needed homes from being built?

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?

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?

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.