Hmm, probably.
Last night I flew a little under 2 hours from Swansea to Booker in a 1947 built aeroplane. Note night: I was not flying in daylight.
Could I have done safely this without any electronic navaids? Probably - but probably isn't good enough and without them I'd not have tried.
The aircraft has a VOR and a GPS. I'd have accepted either, but as it happens the VOR is U/S so I used the GPS. Plus ded-reckoning, plus IFR (I Follow Roads - the M4 mostly).
Why GPS is regarded in a different light to other radio navaids escapes me. VOR works, as do VOR/VOR and VOR/DME, ADF works but is horrible and just about everything is more user friendly; and, of course, GPS works. The point, to me is that sometimes you don't need extra navaids (such as a pleasant flight around the coast in day VFR) and sometimes you do (such as my flight yesterday) you do. The experienced pilot should be capable of working out their personal dividing line as to when he or she does, or does not require them.
Electronic navaids give no cop-out from basic navigation planning and airmanship. But integrated into them it makes it easier and us safer. Doesn't matter which system.
So, on that basis I think that non-use of systems such as GPS in PPL and CPL skills tests is daft, since pilots will certainly use them after they've qualified so surely the authorities and their delegated examiners should be assessing pilots' competence in their use. Complete reliance upon them in those tests however, should certainly be a cause for a candidate to be failed.
What perhaps we do need in between is more teaching and discussion about how to integrate these various navigational tools and methods with each other, taking us beyond the repetitive yes/no arguments about GPS.
G