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.

Red card for tyrant

That great socialist hero Robert Mugabe has told his international critics to "go hang" and is determined to continue starving his people and brutally repressing all opposition.

No real surprise there. But what can be done about it? Don't look for help in the African Union, which has shown itself just as ineffectual as those other international bodies, the United Nations and the European Union. No, the only country capable of rescuing Zimbabwe is South Africa. It controls Zimbabwe's access to oil and electricity and could force Mugabe out within days. Unfortunately, under Thabo Mbeki, the so-called rainbow nation has backed the tyrant to the hilt.

Perhaps if the international community threatened to withdraw support for the 2010 World Cup, it might finally prompt South Africa to do the decent thing.