I think the difference with Ark Royal is that an awful lot of people are deeply unhappy with the way that the Navy, and indeed the armed forces in general, have been subject to deep cuts for largely political reasons which have not been fully thought through and which may be greatly regretted in the future. The decommissioning of Ark Royal which was a fully functioning and very useful major naval unit came to symbolize that concern. And of course, just a few months later she would have been extremely handy during the Libya situation and would probably have avoided the need to fly RAF aircraft from Italian bases which cost rather more than was admitted and which was jeopardised by the Italians wanting to curtail the flights before the operation was over. Relying on your 'allies' to make available facilities when you feel you need them is a stupid policy, they invariably have their own interests which may not accord with yours.
I saw a quote yesterday extolling the virtues of the Type 45 Darings saying that we have no less than six of them. The writer was clearly unaware that the original requirement was for 12 to replace the ships already taken out of commission.
In general, the present Government and Opposition are 'know nothings' when it comes to defence although Philip Hammond is showing some signs of awareness of the potential dangers. By all means cut down on inefficiencies and waste in the MOD but don't confuse that with the Government's very basic obligations for the Defence of the Realm. History demonstrates only too clearly that crises can come seemingly out of nowhere, Libya was just a minor example. Adequate defence capability is a form of national insurance, not an optional activity depending on whatever happens to be the flavour of the month.
Colin