How in heaven’s name did our parents’ generation ever survive without a DVD player, a mobile phone and multi-channel television?

The fact that you are reading this suggests they managed tolerably well, but they wouldn’t be able to in modern Britain, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF).

The left-wing research group, which has great influence in New Labour circles, this week came up with a list of life’s necessities which they argue are absolutely essential for people to live decently and participate in society.

In addition to the items listed above they included cinema tickets, a night out, a bottle of wine, a barbecue, a bird feeder, a holiday, walking boots, a bicycle and a pair of trainers.

It sounds like a random collection of items that might appear on the conveyor belt in a 1970s episode of the Generation Game. “Don’t forget the cuddly toy!” as Bruce Forsyth would say.

But the JRF is entirely serious. The organisation’s website is emphatic that these are what people “need” to live, not just what they may “want”.

This is risible nonsense. Can anyone seriously argue that you cannot exist in modern Britain if you don’t own a bird feeder or a pair of trainers?

And is it impossible to live without multi-channel television? Well, I’ve managed to all my life, as have all my children and we cope perfectly well without endless re-runs of Last of the Summer Wine and monster truck racing from Alabama.

Let’s get this straight - these are really wants, not needs, but there is nothing wrong with that. If you fancy a new barbecue, a glass of wine or a trip to the cinema – and you are prepared to work hard to earn the money to pay for it – then nothing should stand in your way.

But that is not the JRF’s intention. Instead, what we have here is a subtle redefinition of what it means to be poor or deprived in modern Britain. The ulterior motive is to raise benefit levels still further at the expense of the real victims of modern Britain – the working poor.

The JRF estimates that to pay for all these “essentials” a single person needs to earn £13, 400 and a couple with two children £26, 800 – and guess what, current benefit levels are about two thirds of this “minimum”.

Cue lots of agitation by the JRF and other “poverty” campaigners to raise the level of state handouts so people on benefit can afford these “necessities”.

Such a course of action would be disastrous. We already have millions of people permanently on benefits; while millions more immigrants come here to do the jobs the work-shy don’t fancy doing.

Benefit levels are already so generous that many of the working poor would be better off if they gave up their jobs.

Instead the welfare state – as was intended by its founders - should provide a temporary safety net to prevent families falling into destitution – not a permanent lifestyle of luxury and indolence.

Far healthier for our economy and society would be the simple message – if you want the nice things in life, then you have to work for them.