[davidjay]

Would be surprised at that. A chunk of their readership like him and he's good at what he does. He got too close to Corbyn Labour but I'd have thought there was a role for him writing about Starmer.

Maybe he's tainted with Corbynism in their eyes and they want to be full-on Starmerite.

[The Weeping Angel]

It's in relation to this article he wrote.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... oft-brexit

There are now only two certainties when it comes to Brexit: either Britain and the EU will sign off the hardest possible mutually agreed rupture, or the self-inflicted disaster of no deal will become a reality. None of this was inevitable. Don’t listen to me; heed the words of Peter Mandelson instead, who has declared that this is “the price the rest of us in the pro-EU camp will pay for trying, in the years following 2016, to reverse the referendum decision rather than achieve the least damaging form of Brexit”. Much too late. The price that will be paid over a generation or more due to a failure to unite around a compromise is steep indeed.

This is not to apportion all the blame to ardent remainers: far from it. In the referendum campaign, the Brexiteers made impossible promises – from untrammelled access to the single market to £350m a week for the NHS – that could never be kept. Even when Theresa May sabotaged her parliamentary majority, she stubbornly refused to abandon her reckless red lines and attempted to open negotiations with Labour only when her administration was in meltdown, leading John McDonnell to describe it as “trying to enter a contract with a company going into administration”.