Right and wrong Peter!

Yes, the CPGB was dead against the anti-party group but, no, did not 'hide' it from its membership. That would have been pretty pointless and stupid anyway as it was undoubtedly covered extensively in the capitalist UK press.

I can't answer for the Daily Worker as I don't have access to editions in that period, but I would be very very surprised if there was no coverage of the 'anti-party group'.

The CPGB would have been pro the Soviet leadership whoever it was and especially after the 1956 CPSU Congress would have strongly supported the Khrushchev leadership at the time and definitely against the so-called 'anti Party group'.

For example, Gordon McLennan (later CPGB general secretary) stated in a report back from the 21st CPSU Congress in Marxism Today:

"In the period since the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the Communist Party in that country has strengthened its ties with the masses, decisively increased its membership, implemented a series of major measures in home and foreign policy, continued its work of reestablishing and extending the Leninist standards of Party life, and defeated all attempts to take the Party away from the line of the Twentieth Congress.

The implementation of this line was resisted by the anti-Party group of Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov, Bulganin and Shepilov, but this group was routed and the Party has united its ranks still closer around the Central Committee."

In actual fact, rather than remaining slavishly pro Soviet, I believe the CPGB leadership raised serious concern with the Soviets over the claimed reasons for Khrushchev's 'resignation' in 1964. Indicating it was genuinely pro the Khrushchev leadership and its policies rather than being simply pro-Soviet.