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

Niall Boylan
  • 4.4 (98)
  • News Commentary
  • Updated twice weekly

Niall Boylan is online, and nobody can hold him back. Subscribe to The Niall Boylan Show and access premium content by visiting https://niallboylan.com

  1. 1 day ago

    #857 Too Expensive to Visit Ireland?

    Is Irish Tourism in Trouble? Paul Treyvaud on Prices, Hotels and the Real Visitor Numbers Ireland’s tourism industry has still not clearly returned to the levels we were seeing before the pandemic, and despite signs of a recovery during 2026, questions remain about how healthy the sector really is. In this episode, Niall is joined by restaurateur and podcaster Paul Treyvaud to ask a simple question: why are tourist numbers still not where many people expected them to be, and do the official statistics actually tell the full story? In 2025, overseas visitor numbers fell by around 3%, while tourist spending dropped by approximately 9%. More recent figures suggest a significant improvement during 2026, but Paul is asked whether that recovery is being felt on the ground by restaurants, hotels, pubs and other businesses that depend heavily on tourism. Niall also questions whether some of the traditional indicators we use to measure tourism can give a misleading picture. Hotel occupancy may appear strong, but a number of hotels and accommodation centres are being used for IPAS and emergency accommodation. That means fewer bedrooms are available to ordinary tourists, potentially increasing occupancy rates in the remaining hotels while also contributing to higher prices. Dublin Airport is also busier than ever, but packed terminals do not necessarily mean Ireland is experiencing a tourism boom. Many passengers are Irish people travelling abroad, business travellers or passengers connecting through the airport rather than spending their holidays in Ireland. So what is actually happening? Has Ireland simply become too expensive for tourists? Are hotel rooms, restaurant prices, car hire, attractions and the overall cost of a holiday making Ireland increasingly difficult to justify compared with destinations such as Spain, Portugal, Italy or Greece? Is the shortage of available hotel accommodation damaging the industry? Have high prices reached the point where even tourists who can afford to visit Ireland no longer believe they are receiving value for money? And what about the experience on the ground? Are restaurants, pubs and tourism businesses seeing fewer overseas visitors than the official numbers would suggest, or could the industry actually be performing better than the headlines imply? Paul Treyvaud gives Niall his perspective as somebody working directly in hospitality and tourism, and explains whether he believes the statistics match what businesses are seeing every day. Ultimately, Niall asks whether Ireland still offers tourists good value for money, and if we don’t, how long can we expect visitors to keep paying premium prices when there are cheaper alternatives just a short flight away?

    #857 Too Expensive to Visit Ireland?

  2. 1 day ago

    #856 Would You Protect Your Own, No Matter What?

    Blood Is Thicker Than Water: But Should Family Loyalty Have Limits? We all know the saying, “Blood is thicker than water”, the idea that family comes first and that, no matter what happens, you stand by your own. But should that loyalty ever have limits? In this episode, Niall is joined by Karl Deeter to debate just how far family loyalty should go, especially when someone you love has done something seriously wrong. If your brother committed a violent assault, would you still stand beside him, defend him and support him through the consequences? Or would you tell him that what he did was unacceptable and that he now has to face the consequences alone? What if your son or daughter was caught dealing drugs? Would your instinct as a parent be to bail them out, pay for a solicitor and do everything possible to protect them, or could constantly rescuing them actually make the situation worse? There is also a difference between supporting somebody and defending their behaviour. Can you love a family member while still condemning what they have done? Can refusing to protect them sometimes be the most responsible thing a parent, sibling or relative can do? The conversation also looks at families where the problem is not one dramatic incident, but years of lying, stealing, manipulation, addiction, broken promises or treating other people badly. How many chances should somebody receive simply because they are related to you? And at what point does loyalty stop being compassion and become enabling? For some people, family represents unconditional love, security and the people who will still be there when everyone else has disappeared. For others, the deepest betrayals, longest grudges and most damaging relationships they have ever experienced have come from within their own family. Niall and Karl ask whether relatives sometimes receive a free pass for behaviour we would never tolerate from a friend, colleague or partner, and whether walking away from a toxic family relationship can ever be justified. So, is blood really thicker than water? Should family always come first, regardless of what somebody has done, or are there some actions that even family loyalty cannot excuse? Niall Boylan discusses it with Karl Deeter.

    #856 Would You Protect Your Own, No Matter What?

  3. 2 days ago

    #855 Black Economy Crackdown: Fairness Or Overreach?

    Niall talks to Eddie Punch, former European election candidate for Independent Ireland, about Revenue’s growing crackdown on Ireland’s black economy and asks whether ordinary people should be reporting neighbours, tradespeople and local businesses they suspect of working cash in hand. Revenue has pursued more than €10.5 million from suspected black market activity over the past 18 months, targeting sectors including construction, takeaways, beauty businesses, landlords and other cash based operators. Last year Revenue examined almost 13,000 suspected cases, intervening in around 8,000 and collecting €8.3 million. But perhaps one of the biggest changes is coming from the public themselves. Tip offs about suspected black market activity jumped from 930 in 2024 to 1,743 in 2025, while Revenue is also examining social media for evidence of people operating cash in hand businesses and potentially avoiding tax. Supporters of the crackdown argue that legitimate businesses simply cannot compete with someone who avoids VAT, PRSI, income tax, insurance and other costs while offering the same service for cash. Businesses in the beauty and construction industries say the shadow economy creates an unfair playing field for those who follow the rules. But is there another side to it? For generations, people have paid a builder, painter, cleaner, hairdresser or handyman a few euro in cash. Some argue that the black economy keeps money circulating locally, gives people struggling with the cost of living a chance to earn extra income and allows customers to get work done at prices they can actually afford. So where do you draw the line between someone making a few extra quid and deliberate tax evasion? And most importantly, would you actually report somebody to Revenue for working cash in hand, or would you say it’s none of your business? Niall and Eddie Punch debate whether Ireland needs an even tougher crackdown on the black economy, or whether the cash economy is far more important to ordinary people than Government would like to admit.

    #855 Black Economy Crackdown: Fairness Or Overreach?

  4. 2 days ago

    #854 Is Being A Traditional Wife Now Politically Incorrect?

    IS THE GOVERNMENT AT WAR WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY? Niall talks to journalists David Quinn and Brenda Power about the Government’s National Strategy for Women and Girls and what it says about gender roles, marriage, motherhood, careers and the traditional family. The strategy challenges what it describes as patriarchal norms, including the traditional expectation of men as breadwinners and women as carers, and argues that gender stereotypes can restrict the opportunities available to both women and men. It has also sparked controversy over attitudes towards the so called “Tradwife”, women who consciously choose to place marriage, children and the home at the centre of their lives. David Quinn argues that the strategy goes much further than simply giving women greater choice. He believes it is based on an ideology that treats differences between men and women largely as products of social conditioning and places too much emphasis on paid employment and career progression while undervaluing motherhood, caring and life in the home. In his article for Gript Media, David argues that Government policy is attempting to replace one set of traditional expectations with another. He points to countries such as Sweden, where decades of policies aimed at reducing traditional gender differences have not eliminated differences in career choices, working patterns or earnings between men and women. His argument is that Government should value professional and domestic life equally and allow women and men to choose the balance that suits them without attempting to engineer a particular outcome. But is criticism of traditional gender roles justified? Can expectations surrounding husbands, wives and family life sometimes restrict women’s choices? And when campaigners link traditional gender stereotypes with wider issues such as inequality and domestic violence, are they addressing a genuine problem or unfairly portraying traditional relationships as harmful? Niall, David Quinn and Brenda Power debate whether modern Government policy is genuinely expanding women’s choices, or whether the traditional wife, stay at home mother and conventional family are increasingly being treated as something society needs to move away from. Do you see anything wrong with the traditional concept of the family? And if a woman freely chooses to become a “Tradwife”, should Government have any opinion on that choice at all?

    #854 Is Being A Traditional Wife Now Politically Incorrect?

  5. 5 days ago

    #853 Not Suitable For Broadcast. (Trump Takes the Hump) Ep 11

    On this week’s Not Suitable for Broadcast, Niall is joined by his former producer AJ Walsh for a fast moving mix of politics, money, family life, housing and a remarkable story of determination. They begin with Donald Trump’s expected visit to Ireland and the political backlash already surrounding it. With protests being planned and some politicians saying the US President is not welcome, Niall and AJ ask whether personal hostility towards Trump risks getting in the way of Ireland’s economic interests, particularly given the importance of American investment and jobs. They also debate whether Ireland should roll out the red carpet for an elected US President, regardless of what individual politicians think of him. Then it is on to children, chores and pocket money. Should kids be paid for tidying bedrooms, washing dishes and taking out the bins, or should helping around the house simply be part of family life? Niall and AJ look at whether paying for chores teaches the value of work and money, or risks creating a generation that expects payment for every contribution. Energy bills are also under the spotlight after ESB chief executive Paddy Hayes received a €92,000 pay increase, bringing his salary to €410,000, while hundreds of thousands of households are struggling with electricity arrears. Is such a pay rise justified, and should the Government be doing more to reduce energy costs for ordinary households? The pair also tackle the idea of compulsory voting. Would forcing eligible citizens to take part in elections strengthen democracy and improve turnout, or should the right to vote always include the right to stay at home? They discuss the Australian model, spoiled ballots, fines and whether politicians should be earning people’s votes rather than compelling them to participate. Housing comes next, with the controversial Dunsink development plan proposing 18,500 homes for more than 46,000 people. But with the wider project dependent on major water and sewage infrastructure costing a combined €7.3 billion, Niall and AJ ask whether the homes are realistically deliverable, whether local services could cope and whether residents are raising legitimate concerns or standing in the way of badly needed housing. They also debate whether school uniforms should finally be abolished, as parents face growing back to school costs. Are uniforms an outdated and expensive restriction on individuality, or do they still help create equality between children from different financial backgrounds? And finally, the show ends on an extraordinary story. At the age of 97, Betty Bromage has broken her own record as the world’s oldest female wing walker, completing another daring flight after suffering a stroke last year, all while raising money for the stroke unit at Cheltenham General Hospital. Politics, arguments, laughs and absolutely no filter. This is Not Suitable for Broadcast with Niall Boylan and AJ Walsh.

    #853 Not Suitable For Broadcast. (Trump Takes the Hump) Ep 11

  6. 6 days ago

    #852 Should School Uniforms Be Abolished Completely?

    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.

    #852 Should School Uniforms Be Abolished Completely?

  7. 6 days ago

    #851 Dunsink: Solving the Housing Crisis by Creating Another Crisis?

    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?

    #851 Dunsink: Solving the Housing Crisis by Creating Another Crisis?

  8. 5 Aug

    #850 Compulsory Voting: Civic Duty or Democratic Bullying?

    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?

    #850 Compulsory Voting: Civic Duty or Democratic Bullying?
See All (959)

4.4
out of 5
98 Ratings

About

Niall Boylan is online, and nobody can hold him back. Subscribe to The Niall Boylan Show and access premium content by visiting https://niallboylan.com

Information

  • Creator
    Niall Boylan
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2026
  • Episodes
    959
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Copyright The Niall Boylan Podcast

You Might Also Like