Jacks I dunno whether it's bad news or just an inevitability. Okay, there's a case for a carrier force to assist with our various crusades, but this presupposes that any post-Blair government is still going to be quite as keen to follow George on his ludicrous campaigns for much longer. It's not impossible to see how when Georgie has gone, even the USA might eventually "do a Vietnam" and withdraw from this obsession with global warmongering, in which case the United Kingdom is going to be primarily concerned only with its own defence again, as it should be.
Okay, we have to accept that there are always unforseen developments which might require military power but it's almost impossible to imagine any situation which would require the presence of our Navy. Blair can justify sending the Navy to support wars that we really don't have any reason to be involved in, or to do a bit of drug busting here and there, or even the odd bit of hurricane relief... but in terms of a real need which requires huge sums of taxpayer's money? Nope, I think not. Nuclear posturing aside, we don't have the means or even the desire to concern ourselves with anything other than the direct defence of the United Kingdom, therefore a global naval power is patently at odds with our needs. Nobody (well, nobody with any sense) buys into this nonsensical notion that we're somehow defending the UK by fighting wars overseas, so surely it's inevitable that when our forces are withdrawn from Iraq, and somebody comes-up with a neat political excuse to extract ourselves from the ridiculous and bloody saga in Afghanistan, we'll be very unlikely to have any stomach for any more silly crusades. I'd venture to say that is is by no means a bad thing.
Although the UK doesn't appear to have the resources to act like a world power any longer, we can surely afford to defend our nation effectively, if we rid ourselves of our historical baggage. Naval power was once vital but then became merely useful. It must now rate as simply unnecessary.