100 YEARS OLD AND STILL PARKING ECONOMICALLY...

FOLLOWING this column’s revelations yesterday about the various political parties’ policies concerning the economical structure of the game of Monopoly, the debate became more intense when even greater differences were revealed as policies regarding the Free Parking square came under scrutiny.

This highly sensitive issue has been avoided in all their manifestos but came to the fore last night when the Prime Minister was asked whether her party, if re-elected, would guarantee to preserve Free Parking for travellers who land on the relevant square.

“The matter is not in our manifesto because we have no plans to change the status quo unless we think about it and reach a decision,” the PM said.

“That’s not good enough,” said the questioner, whose name was Jeremy, though whether it was Corbyn, Paxman or Clarkson was unclear. “The people of this country have enjoyed the privilege of Free Parking for many years and we have a right to know whether this is going to continue.

“In particular, I am asking the PM to confirm or deny rumours that the Government has been in talks with NTP (National Token Parks) concerning the possible privatisation of the Free Parking square without a guarantee that parking will remain free.”

The PM pointed out that there are 40 squares on a Monopoly board, so a single square, if it is to play its full part in the post-Brexit economy, should contribute 2.5 per cent of national income.

“But no payment will be imposed on means-tested pensioners or bicycles parked by children other than those who can afford their own lunches.”

In response to Jeremy Corbyn’s promise to keep Free Parking in public ownership, the Labour Party was accused of squandering the potential revenue from an important national resource.

Tim Farron, for the Lib Dems, stressed the role of Free Parking in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. “Truck drivers from our continental allies have long availed themselves of Free Parking,” he said, “which I remind you is ideally placed for deliveries to The Strand or Vine Street, which are both in an area where parking can be prohibitively expensive.

“Imposing charges at a realistic rate on the Free Parking square would be equivalent to an import tax and would drive up the prices of all imported goods to the detriment of the UK.”

Nicola Sturgeon then issued a statement strongly criticising the London bias of the entire Monopoly game. Why, she asked, were there no Glasgow or Edinburgh streets on the board? “Parking,” she said, “is relatively inexpensive in Inverness but no decision should be taken on relocating the Free Parking square without another referendum on Scottish independence.”

Interviewed by the BBC, a London truck driver said that he was fed up with the Free Parking always being full of Euro trucks and starving children’s bikes and congestion charges on parked vehicles should be introduced quickly. The debate continues.