Where can the Declassified UK dataset listing MPs funded by pro‑Israel lobby groups be accessed and verified?
Executive summary
Declassified UK has published a compiled list and accompanying dataset naming British MPs who have accepted funding or hospitality from pro‑Israel lobby groups, and the organisation has made that material available on its website — including a downloadable “All‑Party Israel Lobby” PDF that states the data were collated from TheyWorkForYou [1] [2]. Verification of entries can begin with the Declassified pages and that PDF and then follow Declassified’s own trail: the TheyWorkForYou source cited in the dataset [2].
1. Where the dataset is published and how to access it
The reporting and the dataset are available directly from Declassified UK’s website: the investigative stories accompanying the release (for example “Israel lobby funded a quarter of British MPs” and related pieces on Conservative and Labour MPs) contain the named analysis and point readers to the full list, and Declassified also hosts a downloadable PDF titled “All‑Party‑Israel‑Lobby‑Full‑List‑Edited.pdf” on its site [1] [3] [4] [2].
2. What the downloadable file contains and Declassified’s stated methodology
The PDF published by Declassified presents a tabulated list of MPs, party affiliations and amounts where disclosed, and it includes a methodological note that key data were collated from TheyWorkForYou (explicitly cited in the PDF) and that amounts were rounded down to the nearest pound, while some entries are marked “Amount Unclear” when the level of funding was not disclosed [2].
3. How to verify the dataset using the sources Declassified cites
Declassified itself cites TheyWorkForYou as a principal source for the collation [2], so verification should begin with cross‑referencing the named entries against the TheyWorkForYou records referenced in the PDF [2]. Declassified’s articles also cite specific tallies — for example Conservative Friends of Israel funding of 118 sitting Conservative MPs on 160 occasions and over £330,000 spent on trips in a decade — which are presented as drawn from publicly available data reviewed by the outlet [3].
4. Corroboration beyond Declassified: what reporting already does and where gaps remain
Several other outlets and aggregations have reproduced or summarised Declassified’s findings, noting totals such as “180 of Britain’s 650 MPs” and aggregated sums over multiple years, which demonstrates uptake of the dataset into broader coverage [5] [6] [7]. However, the PDF itself flags limits: not all amounts are disclosed and some listings rely on third‑party public records — Declassified does not claim omniscience about undisclosed donors or opaque funding streams [2] [8].
5. Interpretive caveats and alternative perspectives in the reporting
Declassified’s report includes contextual commentary and reactions that complicate simple readings of the list — academic and advocacy voices quoted in the pieces argue both that the scale of funding may indicate lobby “influence” and that some MPs’ positions may reflect pre‑existing pro‑Israel views rather than being bought (Hil Aked quoted) [1]. Declassified also notes that some lobbying bodies, notably Conservative Friends of Israel, do not disclose their own funders, a transparency gap the dataset cannot fully close [8].
6. Practical next steps for a reader who wants to verify individual entries
Start with the Declassified article relevant to the party or cohort of MPs and download the “All‑Party Israel Lobby” PDF linked on Declassified’s site [1] [2]. Use the PDF’s citations (TheyWorkForYou is explicitly named) to follow each MP’s declared hospitality or funding line by line against the public record referenced by Declassified [2]. Where Declassified marks amounts as unclear, that flag should be treated as an unresolved item needing further documentary confirmation [2].
7. Concluding read on credibility and limits
The dataset is openly published by Declassified UK and accompanied by a stated sourcing trail (TheyWorkForYou) that permits independent checks; the reporting has been widely picked up by other outlets, reinforcing visibility [1] [2] [5]. Yet the dataset is constrained by gaps in disclosure from some lobby groups and by entries where amounts are not public, and the reporting itself frames multiple interpretations of what the patterns mean for influence or partisanship [2] [8] [1].