Chaps
The team that briefed Cameron the weekend before the SDSR announcement and got him to change to the B were I am sure very convincing and professional. It was probably one of the best briefs that the PM has ever had.
It made the point that because the C had more range and payload than the B it "had more capability" and was therefore what the UK needed.
That was rather debatable. Yes the C has more payload and radius but it does not have the operating site flexibility of the B afloat or onshore. It needs more complicated ships and even they cannot operate for recovery in some sea states or visibilities. (How may helos fail to get aboard due motion and vis?) Plus of course there is also the CV skill aspects. You don't even need a PPL to be able to land a B vertically (thanks VAAC).
By any real objective analysis to say the C has more capability than the B is not totally true. It has different capabilities and one could argue the B is better suited to the things that the UK might wish to do.
Having said all that I don't think the B is really what the UK needs.
Supersonics and stealth come at a very large cost which the likes of the US, Russia and China might think value for money. But the UK?
Surely the UK needs lower costs plus REAL reliability and a proper number of aircraft? A Harrier III which would do .95 on the deck in the air to air config and only needed replenishment (not maintenance) for say 10 hours, with modest exhaust velocities and temps (because it did not have a supersonic capability) and VAAC no skill FBW handling would be a very useful piece of kit.
But there you go - real men do not bid for subsonic aircraft even though they are only going to use them in the tactical not strategic sense. For this you can blame internal service politics, inter-service ditto and personal agendas. Very sad.