Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Economist is many things, but "sharp left" it is only to a certain subset of people. The rest of the world would mostly call it "left-leaning", or maybe "radical centrist".
Perhaps more like globalist/corporatist, which reflects their recent ownership? In 2015, Pearson - a publishing company - sold its controlling stake to a bunch of corporate owners, like the Agnellis (43%) and the Rotschilds (21%), among others. The change in their editorial direction was immediately visible (I had been a subscriber/reader for 35+ years until 2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group
I'm also a long-time subscriber and do not understand the "shift" you are referring to. The Economist has been pro-free-trade, generally against heavy regulation, and a magazine that consistently takes small-l liberal positions for a very long time. That stance means that sometimes they are right - deregulation has been good in many areas - but sometimes they get it wrong, when, for example, free trade may have adverse effects.
Sometimes they take positions that are bad - they argued for the second Iraq war - but they are pretty up front about their biases, and generally don't represent their biases as purely objective facts, as many traditional newspapers do. Their writing is clear and concise and is not meant to be consumed uncritically. The magazine is still unparalleled for what it offers.