Link: Copy link
No, I am not. I am not a member of any political party or group. I was genuinely curious as to why Mike Hicks could assert that "nearly half of the CPB EC were forced out" after his dismissal as General Secretary, if that was untrue, as Eye Witness claims. I quoted the Weekly Worker article because it was very precise and exact in its assertion that four named EC members were suspended at the May EC, in contrast to most of its coverage of the CPB, which appears to use speculation and guess work, as a substitute for analysis.Perhaps "Sceptic" is not the pro-Hicks stooge some have assumed.
By relying on the Farrell quote (Ian Donovan the ex-spart, ex-ex, former ex, ex-former, etc), which has been pointed out is entirely inaccurate, this would suggest that the author was not therefore part of the ex-Rosser-Hicks group.
No one in their right mind would refer to a WW report as an authority unless they accepted it as genuine.
My guess therefore is a fake return by someone from the fake "CPGB" probably Lyndon Whyte.
He was a contributor before then went silent after the WW's continual lies were challenged. My guess is he, or one of his few comrades, is back. This would also explain the Weekly Worker's recent coverage on the CPB quoting extensively from this site. It also proves the distance of the "Provisional CPGB" from the actual left.
Lyndon, come out, come out, wherever you are!
Why are you so afraid?
1990 should, of course, read 1998.Skeptic declares:
"I conclude Mike Hicks was largely right in his assertion that a significant number of the former CPB leadership were effectively forced out of CPB membership."
On what is your conclusion based? An assertion by Mike Hicks - whose lies led to his removal as General Secretary and to the overwhelming defeat of his faction at the 1990 Morning Star AGM meetings. And an article in the anti-CPB Weekly Worker, whose record for truthfulness is, er, a little shaky.
Can you tell us 1) exactly who was forced out of the CPB Executive; 2) what number constitutes "almost 50%" (M. Hicks) of an Executive of 30; and 3) how close the number of named individuals in 1) comes to the number calculated in 2).
Otherwise, all we have is an empty assertion with no facts to back it up.