Where can official, up‑to‑date membership lists for Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel be obtained?
Executive summary
Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) do not appear to publish a single, centrally maintained public roster of current members in the materials provided; the best routes to assemble “up‑to‑date” lists are a combination of each group’s own communications, MPs’ statutory declarations and third‑party research projects (including investigative PDFs and crowd‑compiled databases) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Reporting and archival sources in the supplied corpus show clear paths to partial rosters but also important gaps and differing institutional incentives about disclosure [7] [8].
1. Where to look first: the groups’ official channels and what they publish
The Conservative Friends of Israel maintains an active website that publicises its programmes, newsletters and claims about its supporter base — for example stating it has “more than 2,000 supporters” and highlighting MPs and ministers who participate in its activities — but the site material in the record does not present a named, machine‑readable, up‑to‑date public membership list of all parliamentary or wider supporters [1] [2]. The supplied sources do not include a current LFI official website publication that lists its complete membership; LFI is described as organised into branches and as having many associated people, but the provided reporting (Wikipedia and related pages) again points to descriptive claims rather than a downloadable official roster [7] [8].
2. Parliamentary disclosures: the most authoritative partial route
For tracking which serving MPs or peers identify themselves as members, the statutory Register of Members’ Interests and related parliamentary disclosures are the most authoritative primary sources cited here; aggregated portals such as TheyWorkForYou surface those registers and make MPs’ declared group memberships searchable, offering an up‑to‑date legal disclosure trail for parliamentarians [3]. These registers are maintained for transparency by parliamentary authorities and therefore provide reliable, individual‑level confirmation of whether a given MP has declared membership or gifts from affiliated organisations [3].
3. Investigative and archival compilations: useful but not official
Investigative projects and crowd‑compiled databases like Powerbase, WikiCorporates and the Declassified UK PDF provide extended lists, historical membership claims and donor/affiliation mapping that have been used to assemble fuller pictures of CFI and LFI networks [5] [9] [4] [6]. These sources are valuable when official lists are absent, but they are not “official” and may lag recent changes or reflect the compilers’ selection choices and editorial frames [5] [6] [4].
4. Limits in the available reporting and hidden incentives
The supplied reporting shows a structural reason for incomplete public rosters: both organisations mix formal parliamentary groups, paid supporter lists and informal affiliates — CFI explicitly highlights a broad supporter base that extends beyond MPs, and LFI organises local branches rather than publishing a single national roster — so an exact, continuously updated public list may not exist or be treated as internal membership data [2] [7]. Advocacy groups, political offices and journalists have different incentives — activists want dissemination, organisations may treat lists as membership data to protect, and investigative reporters want names — which produces patchy public disclosure [10] [6].
5. Practical next steps to assemble an up‑to‑date list
To assemble the most defensible current lists from the documented sources, combine: checks of CFI’s official site and publications for named parliamentary supporters and public statements [1] [2]; searches of the parliamentary Register of Members’ Interests via TheyWorkForYou for MPs’ declared memberships [3]; and cross‑referencing with investigative compilations such as Declassified UK’s lists and Powerbase to catch historical affiliations and wider patterns [4] [5]. The supplied corpus does not provide a single official, downloadable membership roster for either organisation, and therefore this multi‑source approach is necessary to approach completeness [1] [7] [3] [4] [5].