And if it’s clear they do not

"Should Labour’s right flank be brought back into the shadow cabinet? As a general rule, surely not: and not for reasons of retribution on the part of Corbyn’s team, but sound politics.

First, it would inevitably mean demoting those who proved themselves to be a successful team. Second, Labour needs representatives on television who can passionately and convincingly argue for the manifesto’s policies. Public ownership of energy, water and rail, for example, or the end of tuition fees. They will be pinned down by interviewers on these policies. Do you really believe in them? Really? And if it’s clear they do not – if enthusiasm is lacking, or doubts are obvious – what impression will that leave on voters? That’s why Clive Efford – who himself resigned from the shadow cabinet – is right to suggest Labour’s top team should stay as it is." (The Guardian.)

Does the clause And if it’s clear they do not, especially they do not, refer to who can passionately and convincingly argue for the manifesto’s policies, i.e., 'they do not passionately and convincingly argue for the [Labour] manifesto’s policies'?