That's all true, as far as it goes, but she doesn't mention the principle historical movement in this process, which is the rise of globalist power and the concomitant dismantling of national sovereignty. When decision-making in the majority of domestic matters has been handed over to anonymous committee members in foreign countries, whose conclusions are then cascaded down to the local administrators in Westminster and Whitehall, politics ceases to play any part in the action, and becomes mere punditry.
Towards the end, she contrasts the situation with that of the United States (and rattles my cage to boot):
'The Tea Party movement, which is based on the American revolutionary principle of "no taxation without representation", is challenging a government which seems to be threatening the freedom of the individual. The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another. Where is the major British party that will engage in an argument of such force and scope? Who will question the received wisdom of the middle-ground consensus?'
Wait a moment! "The two sides hurl knowledgeable quotes from the founding fathers and the Constitution at one another"?
I think, Janet, you'll find only one side is doing that, the side that loves the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and reveres the Founding Fathers, and that side is outside.