Pronouns and Their Antecedents

Time for grammar. Pronouns refer to nouns, and for them to make sense, they have to follow the noun (the antecedent) they refer to. If a pronoun precedes its antecedent, it can make the sentence more or less confusing. Here's an example:

"In 1976, the radical left was about as powerful as it would ever be in postwar Britain, and, much like their counterparts in the United States, British New Left intellectuals were increasingly focused on cultural questions, including questions about representation and language." (The Nation magazine, June 2015)

The problematic pronoun here is their, in the transition from first to second clause. In the first clause, the pronoun it refers to the radical left (collective nouns in American English are generally considered singular). But when readesr come to that their, they are left to wonder, what's its antecedent? The radical left? That noun phrase has already been replaced by it, so why switch to a plural pronoun here? In the second clause, however, we see that their really refers to British New Left intellectuals -- but with the pronoun preceding its antecedent, readers have to stop and do some mental untangling, distracting them from following the writer's argument. A little shifting around of phrases can solve the problem easily.

"In 1976, the radical left was about as powerful as it would ever be in postwar Britain, and British New Left intellectuals, much like their counterparts in the United States, were increasingly focused on cultural questions, including questions about representation and language."

Any questions?