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

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.

In this episode, Niall talks to political commentator Nick Delehanty about whether employers should have the right to control what their staff post on social media.

Most people would accept that an employer can stop workers scrolling through Facebook, TikTok or X while they are being paid to work. But what happens when an employee posts something from a personal account, using their own phone and in their own time?

Workers have been disciplined and even dismissed over political opinions, controversial jokes and comments made outside the workplace. Adding “my views are my own” to a profile may offer little protection if an employer believes a post has damaged the company’s reputation or upset customers.

Employers argue that staff members are still associated with the company and that offensive or inflammatory posts can cause reputational and financial harm. Employees, however, may feel that their bosses should have no authority over their private lives or personal political opinions.

So, where should the line be drawn? Is protecting a company’s reputation more important than an employee’s freedom of expression, and should something posted at home be allowed to cost you your job?

BOYLAN & HOOK: NOT SUITABLE FOR BROADCAST

Niall Boylan and legendary broadcaster George Hook join forces once again for a lively, outspoken and unapologetic look at the biggest stories of the week. In this episode, they ask:

Is Climate Policy Just Another Excuse to Tax Us? Is Working for the State Like Winning the Lottery?

You Can Shove Your Tax Cuts Up Your Arse! Should Barney’s One Bite Cost Him His Life?

Are Criminal Solicitors Being Forced to Work for Free? and Will Electric Cars Really Stand the Test of Time? Expect strong opinions, sharp disagreements, humour and the kind of conversation that may not be suitable for broadcast.

In this episode, Niall talks to social commentator Karl Deeter about People Before Profit’s proposal for the Government to establish not-for-profit supermarkets to tackle food poverty.

The party is calling for a pilot scheme involving five discount stores across Ireland, following a similar proposal announced by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. The stores would sell essential food items at prices reportedly around 30% below standard retail prices.

People Before Profit says the scheme could be funded through a new tax on the largest supermarket groups and fast-food chains. However, critics argue that these businesses could simply pass the additional cost on to customers through higher prices.

Would state-backed supermarkets genuinely reduce food poverty and force greater competition in the grocery market? Or would taxpayers end up subsidising low-cost shops that could be used by people who do not need financial assistance?

Niall and Karl debate whether the proposal is a practical response to rising food prices or another costly government intervention that could create more problems than it solves.

After more than a decade of grants, tax incentives, subsidised home chargers and investment in public charging infrastructure, has Ireland’s electric vehicle revolution actually delivered?

Since 2010, successive governments have spent hundreds of millions of euro encouraging motorists to abandon petrol and diesel. Buyers can currently receive a grant of up to €3,500 towards an eligible new electric car, while a recent €10 million scrappage scheme offered qualifying motorists total support of up to €8,500.

Yet the latest CSO snapshot shows that fully electric cars represented only 3.4% of Ireland’s private car fleet in 2025, up from 2.6% the previous year. That leaves more than 96% of cars on Irish roads still powered by something other than electricity.

There are signs that the market is beginning to accelerate. Almost one in four new private cars licensed during the first five months of 2026 was fully electric, with new EV registrations rising by 52% compared with the same period last year.

But new sales tell only part of the story. For many motorists, electric cars remain too expensive, especially when compared with affordable second-hand petrol and diesel vehicles. Drivers also continue to raise concerns about range, battery deterioration, depreciation, repair costs and the availability and speed of public chargers.

Home charging can make an EV cheaper to run, but that is not an option for everyone. Apartment dwellers, renters and people without a private driveway may be forced to depend on public charging, where prices can substantially reduce the savings compared with petrol or diesel.

There are also growing concerns about whether Ireland’s electricity grid and charging network are ready for hundreds of thousands of additional electric vehicles. Recent reports have highlighted pressure on parts of the grid and delays in delivering the infrastructure required for a much larger electric fleet.

In this episode, Niall opens the phone lines and asks listeners whether they have made the switch.

Do you own an electric car, and has it saved you money, or do you regret buying it? Are high purchase prices, limited range and slow or expensive public charging still putting you off?

Should taxpayers continue subsidising electric vehicles, or are the grants mainly benefiting people who could already afford to buy a new car?

With fully electric vehicles still accounting for such a small proportion of the national fleet, is Ireland’s electric car experiment beginning to work, or has it become an expensive failure that ordinary motorists simply do not trust?

The “Save Europe Act” is a controversial citizens’ campaign launched by Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Austrian activist Martin Sellner. It calls for a halt to inward migration from non-Western countries, tougher enforcement of Europe’s borders, faster deportations of people living illegally in Europe and an EU-wide policy of “remigration” for migrants considered unwilling or unable to integrate. The campaign also argues that individual European nations should have greater powers to preserve their cultural and national identity.

In this episode, Niall speaks to journalist John McGuirk of The Statement about the proposals and the growing political support behind them.

John does not agree with every aspect of the proposed act, but believes it raises questions that Europe’s political establishment can no longer simply dismiss. Has uncontrolled migration placed unsustainable pressure on housing, public services, social cohesion and national identity, or would the measures proposed under the Save Europe Act undermine basic individual rights?

They discuss calls for mass deportations or remigration, a complete halt to non-Western migration and stronger powers for EU member states to decide who enters their countries and under what conditions.

Are these measures now necessary to secure Europe’s borders and protect its national cultures, or does the Save Europe Act go too far? Where should the line be drawn between a country’s right to control immigration and the rights of individuals already living within its borders?

Do you support the Save Europe Act, oppose it completely, or believe Europe needs tougher immigration controls without adopting every proposal contained within it?

In this episode, Niall speaks to television presenter and animal advocate Andrea Hayes, known to viewers for her compassionate coverage on Animal A&E, Dog Tales and Coming Home for Christmas.

They discuss a heartbreaking email from a listener whose eight-year-old Labrador, Barney, suddenly snapped at her two-year-old son and badly cut his hand. Although the dog had never shown aggression before, the woman’s husband now believes Barney must be put to sleep because the risk to their child is simply too great.

With friends, family and a rescue centre unwilling to take the dog, the family feels they have run out of options. Andrea considers what may cause a previously gentle dog to bite, whether Barney should first be examined for pain or illness, and whether safely rehoming him is realistic.

Should one frightening incident cost a beloved family pet his life, or must the safety of a young child come before everything else?

In this episode, Niall speaks to journalist Laura Perrins about Simon Harris’s proposed tax cuts and asks whether Irish workers should really be celebrating.

The Government is planning a €1.5 billion tax package for Budget 2027, which could see the point at which workers begin paying the 40% income tax rate rise from €44,000 to €46,000. For some workers, that could mean an extra €400 in their pocket over the course of a year.

But Laura argues that once fiscal drag is taken into account, much of the package is not a genuine tax cut at all. The Department of Finance estimates that more than €1.1 billion will be needed simply to prevent workers from being dragged into higher tax brackets as wages rise. That leaves only a relatively small amount as a real reduction in taxation.

Ireland’s middle-income workers already carry one of the heaviest tax burdens in the OECD. The highest 10% of earners pay approximately 40% of all income tax and 60% of Universal Social Charge contributions, while many workers face marginal tax rates of up to 52%. For around four in ten workers, the Government can take more from overtime, bonuses and pay increases than the worker actually keeps.

At the same time, public spending continues to rise dramatically. Total Government expenditure is expected to reach approximately €125 billion next year, compared with less than €70 billion in 2017. Budget 2027 is expected to include an additional €7 billion in public spending alongside the €1.5 billion tax package.

The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has also warned that spending is increasing faster than the sustainable growth rate of the economy, with overruns becoming increasingly common and the State remaining heavily dependent on potentially volatile corporation tax receipts.

With corporation tax revenues reaching €32.9 billion last year, some will question why ordinary workers are still surrendering such a large proportion of every pay rise, bonus and extra hour worked.

Is Simon Harris delivering a meaningful tax cut for the squeezed middle, or is the Government simply taking slightly less while inflation, fiscal drag and rising living costs continue to erode household incomes?

Are Irish workers being offered genuine relief, or should they be demanding far more?

In this episode, Niall speaks to economist and Irish Sunday Times columnist Cormac Lucey about the growing divide between working in Ireland’s public and private sectors.

Recent figures indicate that, during one working year, Gardaí took an average of approximately 18 sick days each, HSE employees, including nurses and doctors, averaged about 15 days, while teachers averaged roughly eight days. The figures are recorded differently across the various public services, so direct comparisons must be treated with caution, but they still raise questions about absenteeism, sick pay and accountability.

In many private sector workplaces, repeated absences would be closely examined and could eventually place an employee’s job at risk. Private employees currently have a statutory entitlement to only five paid sick days, paid at 70% of normal earnings and capped at €110 per day. Public servants generally have far more extensive sick leave arrangements, with some schemes allowing lengthy periods on full and half pay.

Cormac argues that this is only one part of a much wider difference between the two sectors. In his latest column, he says public sector workers benefit not only from superior sick pay, but also from greater job security, stronger pension arrangements and a substantial earnings premium.

Drawing on new CSO figures, Cormac points out that public administration and defence experienced the lowest level of job destruction across the economy between 2020 and early 2026. By comparison, workers in accommodation, food, entertainment, agriculture, construction and other private industries faced much higher rates of job loss and replacement. The CSO recorded more than 113,000 jobs being destroyed across the economy during the first quarter of 2026 alone.

Cormac’s central argument is that public sector pay cannot be judged by salary alone. A permanent employee with an extremely low risk of redundancy, a more generous attendance regime and a pension supported by future taxpayers may have a far more valuable overall package than a private employee earning the same headline wage.

Supporters of public servants will argue that Gardaí, nurses, doctors and teachers perform difficult and essential jobs, frequently under pressure, and that higher absence rates can reflect stressful, dangerous or physically demanding working conditions.

Critics say the system is too protected, too costly and largely insulated from the realities faced by workers whose businesses can close, whose jobs can disappear and whose pensions depend on what they personally manage to save.

So who really has the easier working life in Ireland? Are public servants properly rewarded for essential work, or have better pay, pensions, sick leave and job security created two very different classes of employee?

Niall discusses it with Cormac Lucey.

In this episode, Niall speaks to businessman and commentator Paul Treyvaud after new figures revealed that the State collected a record €5.9 billion in environment related taxes during 2025.

According to the Central Statistics Office, the amount collected increased by 7% in just one year, with ordinary households paying the largest share. Families contributed almost €3.5 billion, representing 59% of the entire environmental tax take.

Energy taxes accounted for €3.9 billion, or almost two thirds of the total. These include taxes and levies connected to petrol, diesel, home heating fuels, electricity and carbon emissions. Carbon tax receipts alone increased by 10% to almost €1.2 billion, while the Public Service Obligation levy on electricity consumers rose sharply.

A further €1.9 billion was collected through transport related taxes, including motor tax and Vehicle Registration Tax. By comparison, taxes directly associated with pollution and resources, including the plastic bag and landfill levies, raised just €30 million.

Supporters argue that environmental taxes are necessary to reduce emissions, encourage people to make cleaner choices and help finance Ireland’s transition towards renewable energy. They say tackling climate change will inevitably cost money, but failing to act could carry an even greater economic and environmental cost.

Critics argue that the system has become less about protecting the environment and more about generating revenue. They say families cannot simply stop heating their homes, driving to work or buying food, and that environmental charges imposed on farmers and businesses are often passed directly to customers through higher prices.

Niall asks Paul whether these taxes are genuinely changing behaviour and reducing emissions, or whether green policies have become a convenient way for the Government to take billions from households without increasing income tax or VAT.

Are environmental taxes a necessary investment in the future, or is Ireland’s €5.9 billion environmental tax bill simply another enormous rip off?

Call the show and have your say.