a balanced Royal Navy, including Carrier Air, was` not a totally good thing for the British Armed Forces
1. I would argue that the funds are not available to provide such a balanced navy. We can either afford a Navy with sufficient frigates for the guard force and other world wide missions we wish to cover, along with an amphibious force to support the Royal Marines; or we can support a CBG with the vast majority of the rest of the Navy defending it at the cost - as seems likely given the leaks in the press today - the amphibious force and future frigates.
Worse, if we only have one, it becomes an irreplacable asset which becomes impossible to place in harms way in littoral waters and, without any organic AAR assets, unable to contribute effectively to anything except operations around the ship. What could be described as a self-sucking hind tit...
2. India is a large expanding country with a population of over a billion, a GDP expected to overtake that of the UK between 2020-25. It also has a neighbour, China, with whom it shares a land border and waters which China is increasingly claiming as it own - and a known programme to build up a carrier force to challenge the dominance of the USN in the region.
In simple terms, India has a maritime threat where their possession of a carrier force is both logical, and increasingly affordable. The UK has no such enemy and an economy going in the opposite direction.