There seem to be a lot of folk with their fingers in their ears, shouting "la la la, I'm not listening, I can't hear you" very loudly.
BHR makes the point that the massive investment in carriers will not give the UK a meaningful ability to conduct anything but the smallest scale operation autonomously - and that we will still rely on coalition partners for most conceivable ops, while we would be able to undertake most small autonomous ops without carriers.
We have never NEEDED to use carriers since 1982 - host nation support has always been available (and if ever it is not, then the proposed op is probably politically unsustainable) land based assets could have always done the job - and could have done so better, cheaper, quicker (eg Sierra Leone).
Now that we have a standing AD det and a reinforceable airfield on the Falklands, even the Falklands no longer represents a scenario in which only a carrier task force could 'do the job' - even if we still had the political will to retake the islands if we withdrew forces and they were invaded again.
Moreover, the other side of the coin is that the massive investment in carriers is distorting the EP, and is ensuring that force structure will continue to erode, and that we will not be able to make the kind of contribution to coalition ops that make us a valued partner, and that allow us to operate for sustained periods without over-stretch.
Carriers or sufficient FJs to be able to sustain ops, or to be able to make a meaningful (Granby type) contribution to another Desert Storm?
Carriers or adequate funding for the kit that the soldiers on the ground really need?
Carriers or adequate helicopter lift?
Carriers or a Trident replacement?
Given a 5% GDP investment in Defence, there might be enough in the pot to be able to do everything, but increased taxation to pay for everything is unlikely, so tough choices must be made.