North East European Region

2014 Election
2014 Results
1. Judith Kirton-Darling (Labour) 221988 36.5% (+11.5%)
2. Jonathan Arnott (UKIP) 177660 29.2% (+13.8%)
3. Paul Brannen (Labour) (110994)
. (Conservative) 107733 17.7% (-2.1%)
. (Liberal Democrat) 36093 5.9% (-11.6%)
. (Green) 31605 5.2% (-0.6%)
. (Independence from Europe) 13934 2.3% (n/a)
. (BNP) 10360 1.7% (-7.2%)
. (English Democrats) 9279 1.5% (-0.7%)
Current sitting MEPs
Judith Kirton-Darling (Labour) Born 1977, Tanzania. Educated at Sheffield University. Trade union officer. MEP for the North East since 2014
Jonathan Arnott (UKIP) Born 1981, Sheffield. Educated at Sheffield University. Former maths teacher. Contested Sheffield Attercliffe 2005, Sheffield South East 2010, South Yorkshire Police Commissioner election 2012. Contested Yorkshire region 2004, 2009 European elections. MEP for the North East since 2014
Paul Brannen (Labour) Educated at Walbottle High School and Leeds University. Head of England North and Central at Christian Aid. Former Newcastle councillor. Contested Berwick upon Tweed 1997, Hexham 2001. MEP for the North East since 2014

Full candidates for the 2014 European election are here.

2009 Election
2009 Results
1. Stephen Hughes (Labour) 147338 25% (-9.1%)
2. Martin Callanan (Conservative) 116911 19.8% (+1.2%)
3. Fiona Hall (Liberal Democrat) 103644 17.6% (-0.2%)
. (UKIP) 90700 15.4% (+3.2%)
. (BNP) 52700 8.9% (+2.5%)
. (Green) 34081 5.8% (+1%)
. (English Democrats) 13007 2.2% (n/a)
. (Socialist Labour) 10238 1.7% (n/a)
. (No2EU) 8066 1.4% (n/a)
. (Christian) 7263 1.2% (n/a)
. (Libertas) 3010 0.5% (n/a)
. (Jury Team) 2904 0.5% (n/a)
Current sitting MEPs
Stephen Hughes (Labour) Born 1952, Sunderland. Educated at Leeds University. Former local government officer. First elected as MEP for Durham and Blaydon in 1984.
Martin Callanan (Conservative) Born 1961, Newcastle. Former Gateshead councillor. Contested Washington 1987, Gateshead East 1992, Tynemouth 1997. MEP for the North East since 1999.
Fiona Hall (Liberal Democrat) Born 1955, Manchester. Educated at Oxford University. Former Parliamentary researcher. First elected as MEP for the North East in 2004.


Comments - 109 Responses on “Europe North East”
  1. The Tory vote really is holding up well. It looks like status quo in Wales too, even though UKIP and Labour are far ahead.

  2. Also, Scotland is on track for 2 SNP, 2 LAB, 1 CON, 1 UKIP

  3. 2 Labour, 1 UKIP.

    Tories lose their MEP here. Some consolation for them in Northumberland but little else where:

    Northumberland 2014 European election Vote Share: Conservatives 25.3% (up 2%), Lib Dems 9.6% (down 15.3%) Labour 27.7% (up 10.1%) and UKIP 27.3% (up 12.5%)

  4. According to Chris Hanrett, we can assume a fair amount quite early on when SUNDERLAND declares at 00:45-01:15 on Friday 24th.

    “…if the result in Sunderland is very close, then Remain has probably won. I said that we should expect Leave to be six percentage points ahead in Sunderland.”

    With thanks to ANDY JS.

  5. Here are my detailed plans for the North East. Only seats of interest are commented upon. Also again note seats marked with a * are for Northumberland, I had a really big debate over these boundaries and again I’m sticking with my preferred proposals but the county is nicely compartmentalised and entitled to a whole 3 seats so it can be modified freely without effecting the rest of the plan.

    1) *Berwick and Hexham (Opperman and Trevelyan would have to battle it out for this safe Tory seat, both have big claims to it)

    2) *Blyth, Morpeth and Ashington (Lavery)

    3) *Cramlington and Prudhoe (Ronnie Campbell’s seat but he’s retiring so probably a new Lab MP, this is a bigish ask for the Tories to win, notional Lab majority of 12%)

    4) North Tyneside (Glindon)

    5) Tynemouth and Wallsend (Campbell, Tories have seemingly blew their shots at winning Tynemouth and this new arrangement just cements it, Lab notional shoots up to just shy of 30%)

    6) Newcastle North (McKinnell)

    7) Newcastle Central (Probably Onwurah, she has the greater claim)

    8) Tyne Bridges (Mearns, Tried to avoid re-creating this seat but there has to be a seat crossing the Tyne and this was by far the most sensible option)

    9) Blaydon (Anderson)

    10) South Shields and Jarrow (Probably Lewell-Buck since she has the bigger claim to it but Hepburn would just contest the following new seat)

    11) Sunderland North and Boldon (Hepburn)

    12) Sunderland Central (Elliot)

    13) Washington (Hodgeson)

    14) Houghton and Easington (Probably Phillipson, Morris would just contest the following new seat)

    15) Peterlee and Cornforth (Morris)

    16) Hartlepool (Wright, Lab are assisted in fending of UKIP thanks to the addition of the staunchly Labour Blackhalls from County Durham)

    17) City of Durham (Blackman-Woods)

    18) North Durham but I want to bring back the name Chester-le-Street which I much prefer (Jones)

    19) West Durham (Goodman unfortunately cos Pat Glass has announced she won’t seek re-election, basically a merger of Bishop Auckland and Durham NW taking in the rural west of the county. Short term this scuppers Tory hopes primarily thanks to the addition of industrial Consett but long term this seat is probably better for the Cons than the current Bishop Auckland even)

    20) Aycliffe and Bellingham (Wilson, based primarily of the current Sedgefield seat however one the Tories have very little short to medium term hope in, the removal of the rural Darlington wards is nowhere near made up by the areas of Tory strength in Bellingham, Labs notional majority increases to a little over 25%)

    21) Darlington (Chapman…just, the addition of the rural Darlington wards makes this a prime Tory target, Wharton would definitely contest this since his Stockton South seat disappears)

    22) Stockton and Yarm (Cunningham, what remains of Stockton North dips down to take in most of Stockton South resulting in a reliable Lab seat with a notional majority of 16%)

    23) Middlesbrough South West (A new seat that would hopefully get a new Lab MP but since his Middlesbrough South seat disappears Blenkinsop would sadly probably get this)

    24) Middlesbrough North East (McDonald)

    25) Redcar and Cleveland (Contains the vast majority of the LA of the same name, with Blenkinsop in Middlesbrough SW Turley would get this.

  6. Thats basically a gerrymandering attempt to turn three tory seats into one.

  7. Here is my plan which I am pretty happy with:

    1)Hartlepool (Wright. Majority over UKIP rises to ~4,500)
    2)Redcar and Cleveland (Turley vs Blenkinsop. Turley has more of a claim)
    3)Middlesbrough (McDonald)
    4)Middlesbrough South and Yarm (Wharton. Notional Tory majority of just over 4,500. Blenkinsop could try here but it wouldn’t be easy.)
    5)Stockton-On-Tees (Cunningham)
    6)Billingham and Sedgefield (or Billingham and Aycliffe. Wilson)
    7)Darlington (Chapman. Majority cut to ~700)
    8)Bishop Auckland (Goodman. Majority falls to ~3,000)
    9)City of Durham (Blackman-Woods)
    10)Easington (Morris)
    11)Consett (or North Durham. Jones as Glass is retiring.)
    12)Houghton and Chester-Le-Street (Phillipson)
    13)Sunderland Central (Elliot)
    14)Washington and Sunderland West (Hodgson)
    15)South Shields (Lewell-Buck)
    16)Jarrow (Hepburn)
    17)Gateshead (Mearns)
    18)Newcastle Upon Tyne West and Blaydon (Anderson)
    19)Newcastle Upon Tyne North (McKinnall)
    20)Newcastle Upon Tyne Central (Onwurah vs Brown)
    21)North Tyneside (Glindon)
    22)Tynemouth (A. Campbell)
    23)Ashington and Blyth (Lavery as R. Campbell is retiring)
    24)Hexham and Cramlington (Opperman)
    25)Berwick-Upon-Tweed and Morpeth (Trevelyan)

    The Newcastle seats have undergone some fairly radical changes into what I think are more sensible seats for example the new North contains parts of all the old North, East and Central.

    Note with Northumberland you have got essentially Labour favoured (rivers10s plan), Tory favoured (my plan) or neutral consisting of 1)Berwick and Hexham (Tory) 2)Ashington, Blyth and Amble (Labour) 3)Cramlington and Morpeth (marginal currently notionally Tory contains Ponteland).

  8. Joe
    That’s pushing it, the two areas where the Tories lose out in my plan are for very clear reasons, Northumberland is as Pepperminttea states an awkward area, one of the two parties is going to lose out since the “neutral” options for the county are a bit fruity. We’ll have to just wait and see what’s proposed but either Lab seats fall from two to one or Tory seats fall from two to one there are no other options really.

    Then Teesside, as far as I can tell without resorting to outright gerrymandering its simply not possible to create a Tory seat on Teesside, I’m going to ask what wards Pepperminttea used to create the Middlesbrough South and Yarm but I’m dubious to say the least how he managed to create a seat with such a majority in the area.

  9. Pepps
    Mind telling me exactly the wards used for your Teeside seats, I messed around with the area for ages and I just can’t see how you created a seat with such a Tory majority.

  10. Borough of Stockton-On-Tees wards of: Eaglescliffe, Yarm, Ingleby Barwick East, Ingleby Barwick West, Stainsby Hill.
    Borough of Middlesbrough wards of: Stainton and Thornton, Hemlington, Coulby Newsham, Marton West, Marton East, Nunthorpe, Ladgate, Kader, Trimdon.

  11. That’s Middlesbrough South and Yarm. Using electoral calculus’s figures it produces a Tory majority of 4,642. Drawing this seat is actually the easiest way to avoid a mess in at least one of one of Stockton, Middlesbrough, Redcar or Hartlepool.

  12. Yes I’d call that ‘Marton & Yarm’ personally. It’s a perfectly defensible seat.

  13. It’s hardly that surprising that such a seat is Conservative. Middlesborough South is only marginally Labour and Stockton South is Conservative so you hardly have to engage in outright gerrymandering to create a Conservative seat from them,

  14. @Tory It’s not actually even a gerrymander it is by far the most sensible option that I can see. Drawing this seat allows the Middlesbrough constituency to pick up the excess wards from the Redcar and Cleveland authority (Ormesby, Normanby, Teesville, South Bank, Grangetown) which are effectively Middlesbrough suburbs anyway. This then allows you to create a nice safe Labour Stockton seat and not mess up Hartlepool while keeping Billingham together.

    I would be happy with Marton and Yarm btw :).

  15. Ok observation time, our Middlesbrough N/NE seats and Redcar and Cleveland seats are near enough identical so no issue there and so long as you add all the Bellingham wards plus Northern Parishes to the Sedgefield seat (whatever it ends up being called) the remaining areas of Teesside can be modified freely without effecting anywhere else.

    Now lies my issue, I know you will profoundly disagree with this and I’m not for a minute accusing you of gerrymandering here (for a change lol) but the BC’s rules clearly state that geographical boundaries must be taken into consideration and when possible used as natural boundaries. This is easily done in this case by following the river Tees, all wards on the Western side are paired with Stockton proper while wards on the Eastern side are added to the Middlesbrough SW seat.

    In practice this means the Stockton proper seat gains Eaglescliffe and Yarm and losses village and Mandale and Victoria. Now you might think of this as gerrymandering but it involves the exact same number of ward transfers as your own changes and follows a clear geographic boundary which the BC states your meant to do.

  16. @Pepp- Totally agree.

  17. @rivers10 you have to cross it somewhere you yourself have in your plan.

  18. You have just added Yarm to Stockton which makes far less sense demographically than adding wards like Mandale and Victoria which is part of Stockton proper while Yarm is most certainly not.

  19. Pepps
    You are of course correct but I was counting the river Leven as a geographical boundary too. But for the sake of compromise you could even keep Yarm in the Middlesbrough S seat and keep Mandale and Victoria in Stockton, the bit that looks “dubious” is adding Eagliscliffe and removing Village

  20. The people of Yarm/Eaglescliffe/Ingleby Barwick object to even being part of Stockton borough so putting them in a Stockton seat ahead of places like Mandale and Victoria is a red rag to a bull. They sit far more nicely with the more affluent middle class parts of Middlesbrough borough (I remember you saying demographically harmonious seats is important to you?)

  21. “They sit far more nicely with the more affluent middle class parts of Middlesbrough borough”

    You’ve clearly never visited Coulby Newham…

    I also don’t recall ever saying demographically harmonious seats are important, I’ve often stated that cultural and historical harmony is important but demographically no since that just necessitates creating dozens of safe seats for both parties everywhere.

  22. I obviously wasn’t talking out that ward lol.

    Well you have used arguments to that effect to justify Labour friendly boundaries/packing the Tory vote.

    Or if you wanted to keep all of Thornaby in the same seat you can move Stainsby Hill into Stockton-On-Tees and move the Middlesbrough ward of Acklam into Middlesbrough South and Yarm (or Marton and Yarm) though this raises the Tory majority further to nearly 5,000. I prefer this (not for partisan reasons) as it fixes my one problem with my original proposal splitting Thornaby.

    Although it obviously isn’t the best proposal for Labour (though the Middlesbrough South and Yarm is certainly winnable) it is probably the arrangement which will receive the fewest local objections.

  23. “89% of Yarm residents would rather be in North Yorks”

    Well that isn’t new news, indeed once upon a time the area was North Yorkshire, in fact it lead to me and Tory discussing the boundaries for Teesside on another thread a while back and him throwing out the idea of a “Guisborough and Yarm” stretching from Cleveland to Yarm taking in all the areas that were part of old Yorkshire bar Redcar and most of Middlesbrough but obviously such a seat wouldn’t be allowed since it crosses three authorities something which seems to be pretty much forbidden for metropolitan boroughs.

    “Well you have used arguments to that effect to justify Labour friendly boundaries/packing the Tory vote”

    It might lead to confusion since the arguments are often similar but there is a VERY big difference to arguing for something on demographic and cultural/historical grounds. Quoting another example from the NE that you might be thinking off the whole Northumberland debate my advocacy of a Cramlington and Prudhoe seat wasn’t predicated on the areas being demographically similar (since as was pointed out their not unifrom, Prudhoe is becoming more like a market town and Cramlington has some very middle class bits) rather it was the merging of two former coalmining areas that look more towards Tyneside and Durham than they do rural Northumberland. Big difference.

    And when taken in conjunction with the BC’s rules on geographic boundaries it leads me to believe what I believe.

  24. Also I’d like to take back my earlier comment on Coulby Newham, it sounded super familiar but having looked around the area on Google maps its clearly not the place I was thinking of, I didn’t recognise anything and all in all it looked very respectable. Definitely not the area I visited quite a few years back.

  25. Well Prudhoe has been in Hexham and in a seat with huge swathes of rural Northumberland since time immemorial but we’ve had that discussion in extreme depth before so there is no point raking that over again.

    However back to this seat the Middlesbrough South and Yarm is probably the best way to keep local residents happy in any case seen as it keeps all of Stockton in the Stockton seat and avoids putting Yarm and Eaglescliffe in the Stockton seat. I have a feeling you would probably agree though if it happened to be the best boundaries for Labour 😉 (i.e if this arrangement prevented two Tory seats).

    What wards did you put in Middlesbrough South West btw?

  26. Pepp- ‘I have a feeling you would probably agree though if it happened to be the best boundaries for Labour (i.e if this arrangement prevented two Tory seats).’

    Indeed! Of course I too can be guilty of that.

  27. Pepp
    It depends on what version of it, but very similar wards to yours. My initial plan contained

    Stainton, Hemlington, Coulby Newham, Trimdon, Kader, Marton East/West, Ladgate, Nunthorpe, Acklam and Ayresome from Middlesbrough and from Stockton, Village, Mandale, Stainsby Hill and both Ingelby Barwick wards but as I said you could easily switch Mandale for Yarm.

  28. @rivers10 I guess they could possibly do that but as I said the residents of Yarm/Eaglescliffe would throw a hissy fit. But they would almost certainly call them Middlesbrough and Middlesbrough South and Thornaby. Oh and Ayresome would definitely still be in the Middlesbrough proper seat, I see you conveniently and unnecessarily put it in the south seat ;-).

  29. And Mandale probably should be in a Stockton seat as at least part of the ward is Stockton proper and it is just a hop away from Stockton high street. As you say you can switch it for Yarm but this does throw up the problem that Yarm and Eaglescliffe look to be effectively one town with different names either side of the Tees.

  30. I’d doubt they’d be pleased but honestly as was alluded to on the Totnes thread the vast bulk of the public don’t care about boundaries, aside from a few really snobbish types (who might I add would find it equally distressing to be paired with anywhere from Middlesbrough) most people would neither care nor even be aware of the change.

    Re Ayresome I can honestly state that wasn’t a partisan move, don’t get me wrong I was aware of the partisan effects and happy to go along with it but my motivation was that if Mandale was included it kinda jutted up from the rest of the seat, adding Ayresome kinda glided it in if you know what I mean, plus it contained the interchanges for the A19 and A66 thus allowed for greater connectivity within the seat (something I do fervently believe in) so honestly even if it was a rock solid Tory ward I’d have still added it. Conversly if Mandale is to be removed and replaced with Yarm I wouldn’t bother adding it despite from a partsain perspective it being even more helpful since at that point the seat becomes very marginal.

  31. Also re Mandale being in the Stockton seat due to being so close to the city centre and part of Stockton proper its a very valid argument and as I said I’d be content to place it in the Stockton seat, I’d just again reiterate the point I often make that the BC are very weird, the current Peterborough seat is a perfect comparison to this with a good chunk of what any normal person would deem downtown Peterborough being lumped in Cambridgeshire NW thusdissecting the city centre. I’m not certain but I’m pretty sure the reason for this was again the BC’s rules on geographical boundaries, they were simply following the river Nene.

  32. Rivers10 – Berwick & Hexham – you cannot be serious?!

    They’re 80 miles apart.

    The Berwick seat is already 50 miles long and the largest seat in England, without stretching it further.

  33. Lancs
    I’ll make the same points I made when these boundaries were debated on the Berwick thread.

    Firstly its not the biggest seat in England, that honour goes to Penrith and the Border, this seat would still be smaller geographically than the Penrith seat and also smaller than what appears to be the agreed upon boundaries for the new Penrith seat so it wouldn’t even become the biggest seat in England post review.

    Secondly unless you want to pair Berwick with bits of Ashington (a mere 52 miles apart) you have to add the rural wards that separate Berwick and Hexham anyway pretty much creating the huge seat you have an issue with regardless.

  34. Micheal Crick has posted on Twitter that Steven Woolfe has been disqualified from the leadership contest after his nominations was submitted after the noon deadline.

  35. Woolfe claims he is still a candidate, it was technical problems that delayed his submission. But it may need resolving by UKIP’s candidate vetting panel (there is such a thing!)

  36. It’s quite something when two parties have an internal debate over whether a candidate can be on the ballot within the space of a month

  37. If it’s true them it’s embarrassingly shambolic on his part to not get the papers in on time

  38. well apparently he got them in at 11.35 but they weren’t successfully submitted until 12.17 but unless he was struggling to get nominations why risk submitting 25 minutes before the deadline

  39. Why leave something as important as that until 25 minutes before the deadline (especially on a Sunday)!

    Imagine if say if one of his 50 backers had also nominated another candidate – something that often happens in local elections.

  40. Suprised UKIP had a sunday deadline anyway.

  41. Yes, it is odd (especially as he was a lawyer).

    In fact, his only proof is a PayPal receipt of the £5k deposit fee being at 11.35am.

    I would have thought that Nominations should be hand delivered – although I realise UKIP HQ is not an ERO.

    With Suzanne Evans not being allowed back in to stand either, are there any well known candidates standing? Diane James perhaps? Or just one MEP I hadn’t heard of?

  42. Apparently Nathan Gill, who was deposed as leader of UKIP in Wales just after the Welsh Assembly election and is managing Woolfe’s camapign, has now been expelled form the party. This relates to a complex dispute over his double-jobbing as an AM and MEP. He hasn’t resigned as an MEP because two of the other three candidates remaining on the list are also now AMs. The third, James Cole, now runs a website called ‘Exposing UKIP’! The precedent is that Cole would not automatically become an MEP, but if nobody on the list was available to take Gill’s place there could be a Wales-wide EP by-election – which would be the first EP by-election in the UK since PR was adopted, and also presumably the last!

    There was some talk of a late entry from Diane James but not sure if that came to anything. The other candidates are Jonathan Arnott (NE MEP, wants to target the Labour vote), Bill Etheridge (West Midlands MEP, very right-wing even by UKIP standards and wants a referendum on the death penalty), Elizabeth Jones (UKIP NEC member and member of UKIP Lambeth, which I can’t imagine has many members!) and Lisa Duffy (Ramsey Cllr, who is being supported by Suzanne Evans and Patrick O’Flynn).

  43. Thanks, very interesting.

    The name Etheridge rings a bell, but other than he’s elderly don’t know much about him.

    Equally, I know Arnott is young – and possibly autistic – but again not on the national radar.

    Not heard of Duffy, but both her backers are heavyweight.

  44. Woolfe is probably now ineligible anyway, as he’s revealed he breached Electoral Law by failing to disclose a drink driving conviction when he stood for Police & Crime Commissioner.

  45. He’s not necessarily not eligible to vote. A decision by the police/CPS will be made but UKIP could still go ahead and nominate him and select him. Remember this is UKIP we’re talking about.

  46. In what I’ve found to be the most hilarious thing of the night the BC have actually proposed my tongue in cheek “Berwick and Ashington”

    Hope is lost the BC have gone mad…

  47. Ouch although silver linings and such it does take in the most Tory voting bits of the old Sedgfield which was starting to look a wee bit shaky for Labour, With those wards gone I cant see the Tories ever winning the proposed East Durham that replaces it.

  48. Deepthroat – I take your point. From what I recall, charge or conviction of an electoral offence bars anyone from standing for 5 years in any election in the UK.

    However, conviction of another offence does not, eg Cllr Paul Brant (also a barrister in fact) was convicted of possession of drugs. He stood down from the City Council in Lpool but didn’t have to. In fact he came back 18 months later in a different ward and is still a lawyer as far as I know.

    Merely 6 months’ non-attendance bars a Cllr. MPs aren’t even barred if they’re jailed! (unless a lengthy sentence)

  49. 3 seats unchanged in the North East:

    North Tyneside.
    Sunderland Central.

  50. Given the carve up by the BC I’ve had a play myself and come up with the following constituencies that are better at preserving communities:

    1 Berwick upon Tweed and Morpeth (entirely within Northumberland)
    2 Hexham and Cramlington (entirely within Northumberland)
    3 Ashington and Blyth (entirely within Northumberland)
    4 Tynemouth (within North Tyneside)
    5 Tyneside North (across North Tyneside and Northumberland)
    6 Newcastle East and Wallsend (across Newcastle and North Tyneside)
    7 Newcastle North (within Newcastle)
    8 South Shields (within South Tyneside)
    9 Jarrow and East Gateshead (across Gateshead and South Tyneside)
    10 Gateshead West (within Gateshead)
    11 Newcastle West and Blaydon (across Gateshead and Newcastle)
    12 Redcar and East Cleveland (within Redcar and Cleveland)
    13 Middlesbrough and Eston (across Redcar & Cleveland and Middlesbrough)
    14 Middlesbrough South and Thornaby (across Middlesbrough and Stockton)
    15 Stockton and Yarm (within Stockton)
    16 Hartlepool (across Hartlepool and Durham)
    17 Sunderland North (within Sunderland)
    18 Sunderland South and Seaham (across Sunderland and Durham)
    19 Easington and Houghton (across Sunderland and Durham)
    20 Chester le Street and Washington (across Sunderland and Durham)
    21 Durham City (within Durham)
    22 Durham North West (within Durham)
    23 Bishop Auckland (within Durham)
    24 Darlington (within Darlington)
    25 Billingham and Sedgefield (across Durham and Stockton)

    I would personally split wards in two places around Newcastle and Gateshead to improve the geographic shape of seats but even without my seats still work

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)