Imagine opening your home to your mother-in-law—a woman who’s been a force in your spouse’s life but, let’s be honest, isn’t exactly your cup of tea. Would you do it? Could you do it? That’s the dilemma a listener is facing after their “monster” mother-in-law announced she needs a place to stay.

In this episode, Niall explores what happens when family duty collides with personal space. Is welcoming an aging in-law an act of love or a recipe for disaster? Some argue that taking care of family—no matter how challenging—should be a given, while others believe marriage thrives best when in-laws maintain a healthy distance.

Callers share their experiences, some championing the idea of making room for the mother-in-law, emphasizing loyalty, gratitude, and even financial benefits. Others, however, paint a different picture—of meddling, constant conflict, and strained marriages. Nursing homes, granny flats, and firm boundaries all enter the debate as possible solutions.

Is this kind of sacrifice necessary, or does it lead to resentment? How do you balance care with self-preservation? And most importantly—how do you survive if your mother-in-law moves in and never wants to leave?

Join Niall for an honest, unfiltered conversation about family obligations, personal space, and whether bringing a mother-in-law into your home is an act of kindness… or self-sabotage.

In this episode of the podcast, Niall is joined by Professor Seth Barrett Tillman from Maynooth University’s Law and Criminology department to discuss Ireland’s proportional representation system and its impact on elections. With voters feeling increasingly disillusioned, Seth breaks down the mechanics of the system, its strengths, and its glaring flaws.

Seth challenges the idea that proportional representation always results in a fair outcome, explaining: “Proportional representation makes sure that minorities have at least a voice, even if they don’t really have an element of control.” He also highlights the stark voting disparities across the country, pointing out that in Kerry, a candidate needs over 13,000 votes to reach the quota, while in Dublin Central, it takes just 6,500. “That is, in my view, very unfair,” he states.

As the conversation unfolds, Seth and Niall debate whether low-quality votes deep in the count are undermining democracy, how the lack of transparency in Ireland’s system obscures accountability, and why the electoral structure favors urban constituencies over rural voters. They also touch on international comparisons, from the U.S. Electoral College to mandatory voting in Australia.

Niall shares his own frustrations from running in the European elections, comparing the convoluted counting system to the ‘pub debate logic’ of a World Cup qualifier—where one team's fate depends on a complex mix of other results. Meanwhile, Seth explores whether shifting from population-based representation to voter-based constituencies could bring a fairer balance to Ireland’s political landscape.

Is the system broken, or is it simply misunderstood? Would Ireland benefit from a two-party system, or is coalition politics the best we can hope for? And more importantly—should you really be allowed to win a seat because someone thought you "looked nice"? Tune in for a fascinating deep dive into the heart of Ireland’s electoral process.

In this episode, Niall is asking: Are the new speed laws about saving lives, or are they just another way to generate revenue? Many people are unaware that from February 7th, speed limits on many rural local roads will be reduced. We talk to Eric Nelligan and ask if this change is really about road safety or if it’s just another cash grab.

From next month, the default speed limit on rural local roads will decrease from 80 km/h to 60 km/h, as part of the government’s new "Slower Speeds, Safer Roads" plan. The changes come following recommendations from the Speed Limit Review and are aimed at reducing road deaths, particularly in high-risk areas. Supporters of the measure say it will lead to fewer severe accidents, while critics argue it will lead to more fines rather than real safety improvements.

Some callers think these new speed limits are essential for saving lives. Many rural roads are narrow, winding, and not designed for high-speed driving. Lowering the speed limit to 60 km/h will help prevent accidents and fatalities, especially in areas with poor visibility and unpredictable conditions. A reduced speed limit means shorter stopping distances and gives drivers more reaction time to avoid collisions. If it saves even one life, it’s worth it.

While other callers feel this is just another way to generate revenue through fines. Many drivers are accustomed to the 80 km/h limit, and sudden changes will likely lead to unintentional speeding, meaning more tickets and more money for the government. Instead of focusing on real safety improvements like better road conditions, clearer signage, or better driver education, they’re imposing lower speed limits just to catch people out. It’s an unfair crackdown on motorists.

As the debate rages on, one thing is clear—opinions on this issue are deeply divided. Supporters of the new laws argue that even a slight reduction in speed could mean the difference between life and death, while opponents believe it’s just another way for the government to squeeze more money from drivers. Will these changes actually improve road safety, or are they just another example of unnecessary bureaucracy? Only time will tell.