Whilst the premise of the original statement (that the English tradition is dead) is demonstrably wrong, I think it is true that the English folk revival is somewhat disconnected from the tradition. It is entirely possible to be fully involved and engaged with revival folk whilst completely ignoring the actual tradition, and I know many people who have no interest in listening to traditional singers and musicians (as well as a great many who do).

The Irish revival began as an attempt to reinvigorate a tradition which was in decline, and was motivated at least in part by cultural and political nationalism. The English folk revival of the 1950s and 60s was driven by a number of things, including the American folk revival, the American civil rights/anti-Vietnam protest song, blues as well as traditional folk from all over the British Isles and elsewhere. It was only as time went on that it became more narrowly focussed on British and specifically English music, but even then it was mainly derived from collections or circulated between revival musicians, rather than living or recorded source musicians.

As a result a style of interpretation and accompaniment developed which had only passing reference, if any, to the tradition. I had been involved in folk music for some years before I realised that authentic traditional music hadn't died out at the time of Cecil Sharp.

I don't think this is entirely a bad thing. It does mean that English musicians are far less constrained by "the tradition" and feel able to take from it and adapt it as they see fit. This results in much greater diversity.