Preston 2000

The Preston by-election of 2000 is remembered less for who won than for how they won it. Labour’s Mark Hendrick held the seat, but the story that dominated the following morning’s papers was the collapse in turnout and the swing against a governing party barely three years into its first term. For students of UK politics and journalism alike, it remains a compact case study in how to read a by-election result — and how not to.

Key Takeaways

• Labour held Preston with 9,765 votes (45.7%), but its share fell sharply from the 1997 general election, producing a swing of roughly nine per cent away from the party.
• Turnout fell from more than 65% in 1997 to just under 30% — the single most striking figure of the night.
• The Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates both branded the result a “hollow victory” for Labour, while a Conservative spokesman attributed the low turnout to public “disillusionment”.
• Minor parties — the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, UKIP, the Greens, the Prolife Alliance, the BNP and the BBCA — collectively polled a meaningful slice of a much smaller electorate.
• By-elections are poor predictors of general elections, but they are excellent indicators of mid-term mood, party organisation and the health of local campaigning.

What Happened at the Count

The result was declared overnight, and the numbers told a story of their own. Mark Hendrick, the Labour candidate and a former Member of the European Parliament for the region, took 9,765 votes — 45.7 per cent of those cast. His nearest rival, the Conservative Graham O’Hare, polled 5,339 (24.9 per cent), while the Liberal Democrat Bill Chadwick finished third with 3,454 (16.7 per cent).

The headline figure, though, was the swing. Labour’s share had stood at more than 60 per cent in 1997; the drop to 45.7 per cent represented a swing of about nine per cent away from the governing party. That is a substantial movement in a single parliamentary term, and it framed every subsequent comment from the defeated candidates.

Turnout was the other dominant number. It fell from more than 65 per cent at the 1997 general election to just under 30 per cent. In other words, fewer than one in three registered voters bothered to cast a ballot — a collapse of more than half.

The Full Result

Candidate	Party	Votes	Percentage
Hendrick, Mark	Labour	9,765	45.7
O’Hare, Graham	Conservative	5,339	24.9
Chadwick, Bill	Liberal Democrat	3,454	16.7
Cartwright, Terry	LSA	1,210	5.6
Beaman, Greg	UKIP	458	2.1
Merrick, Richard	Green	441	2.0
Garrett, Peter	PA	416	1.9
Jackson, Chris	BNP	229	1.0
Franklin-Braid, David	BBCA	51	0.2

The spread of minor-party candidates is itself instructive. The Legalise Cannabis Alliance’s 1,210 votes (5.6 per cent) was a notable showing for a single-issue party, and the presence of UKIP, the Greens, the Prolife Alliance, the BNP and the BBCA reflects the breadth of fringe and protest candidacies that by-elections traditionally attract. When the major parties are unpopular and turnout is low, small parties can punch above their weight simply because their committed supporters still turn out.

Reading a By-Election Like a Journalist

By-elections are a distinct genre of political story, and reporting them well requires understanding what the numbers can and cannot tell you. Here is a practical framework.

• Always compare like with like. A by-election result should be set against the previous general election in the same seat, not against national polling. The 1997 baseline is what gives the Preston swing its meaning.
• Treat turnout as a story in itself. A fall from over 65 per cent to under 30 per cent changes the character of every other number. A 45.7 per cent share of a shrunken electorate is not the same mandate as 45.7 per cent of a full one.
• Distinguish swing from vote share. Swing is a calculated measure of movement between two parties; vote share is a raw proportion. Confusing the two is one of the most common errors in student copy.
• Beware the “hollow victory” framing. It is a quote from the losers, not a neutral description. Attribute it, as the original report does, rather than adopting it as fact.
• Look at the minor-party column. It often reveals more about protest sentiment than the top two lines.

What the Candidates Said — and Why It Matters

The rhetoric at the count is part of the record, and it repays close reading.

Hendrick, speaking after the declaration, said he was “honoured” to be elected MP for the town: “I’m proud to serve as MP for Preston — it is a great town with a great future, and I will do my best to represent Preston first.” He pointed to the town’s increasing prosperity and said he was now in a position to further the work he had begun as its former MEP. Quoting the late Labour leader John Smith, he said: “All I ask is the opportunity to serve,” adding, “This government has served” — to which hecklers responded, “Served the rich!”

A vocal minority at the count accused Hendrick of being a “New Labour puppet”, a phrase that captures the internal party tensions of the period.

O’Hare, the Conservative, conceded the seat but insisted the wider signal favoured his party: electors had told him it was “great to be a Tory in this town”, and he declared, “Let it be clear, this has been a hollow victory for Labour.” He argued the result showed Lancashire’s electorate swinging away from the government.

Chadwick, the Liberal Democrat, echoed the phrase — “this indeed is a hollow victory for Labour” — and noted that cabinet ministers who had visited Preston during the campaign had done nothing to change that. Yet shortly before the count he admitted to being “very disappointed” with his own performance, adding: “In politics you’ve got to take the rough with the smooth … but we’ve consolidated our position and moved into areas of the town which before have always been Labour bastions.”

A Conservative spokesman said the low turnout indicated the electorate’s “disillusionment” with the Labour government and with politics in general.

Why By-Elections Matter — and Their Limits

By-elections occupy a peculiar place in British political life. They are genuine elections, but they are fought under conditions that rarely repeat at a general election: lower turnout, a narrower campaign, often a single dominant local issue, and a national media that treats the result as a referendum on the government of the day.

That makes them useful, but dangerous to over-read. A few principles are worth holding on to:

• They measure mid-term mood, not final outcomes. Governments routinely lose by-elections and go on to win general elections; oppositions routinely celebrate swings that evaporate at the polls.
• They reward organisation. A party with a strong local machine and motivated activists can outperform its national standing, especially when turnout is low.
• They punish complacency. Safe seats with demoralised supporters are exactly where turnout collapses, as Preston demonstrated.
• They amplify protest. When the two main parties are both unpopular, voters feel freer to back a minor party or stay home.

For journalists, the discipline is to report the result accurately, contextualise it against the previous general election, and resist the temptation to write the general election story from a single by-election night.

Reporting Standards and Resources

Anyone covering UK elections — whether for a student publication, a regional title or a national newsroom — should be grounded in the established codes and reference sources. The BBC and Sky News both maintain dedicated politics and election results sections that are widely used as reference points.

The Electoral Commission is the statutory body that regulates party and election finance and publishes guidance for candidates and agents. For historical results and constituency data, the House of Commons Library produces authoritative research briefings, and Wikipedia’s constituency and candidate pages are a useful starting point for cross-checking names and dates.

On the training side, the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ) sets the standard qualifications for UK reporters, including its flagship Diploma in Journalism, while university journalism programmes and newsroom apprenticeships provide the practical route into the profession. For anyone in the North West, regional titles and the local press corps remain the most direct training ground for political reporting.

Accuracy, attribution and context are the three pillars. The [Preston 2000](/archive/Templates/Candidates/candidate biographies) result is a good test of all three: the numbers are simple, but the interpretation is not.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the result of the Preston by-election in 2000?

Labour’s Mark Hendrick won with 9,765 votes, or 45.7 per cent of those cast. The Conservative Graham O’Hare came second with 5,339 votes (24.9 per cent) and the Liberal Democrat Bill Chadwick third with 3,454 (16.7 per cent). Labour held the seat, but with a much reduced share of a much smaller electorate.

Why was Labour’s win described as a “hollow victory”?

The phrase came from the defeated candidates, not from neutral observers. Both O’Hare and Chadwick used it because Labour’s vote share had fallen from more than 60 per cent in 1997 to 45.7 per cent, a swing of about nine per cent away from the party, and turnout had collapsed. It was a win in name, but a weak one in numbers.

What was the turnout, and why does it matter?

Turnout fell from more than 65 per cent at the 1997 general election to just under 30 per cent. It matters because it changes the meaning of every other figure: a party’s share of a shrunken electorate represents far fewer actual voters, and low turnout is often read as a signal of public disengagement or disillusionment.

How useful are by-elections for predicting general elections?

They are useful indicators of mid-term mood but poor predictors of final outcomes. Governments frequently lose by-elections and still win the following general election, and oppositions often celebrate swings that do not carry through. They are best read as snapshots of party organisation, local sentiment and protest voting at a particular moment.

What is the difference between swing and vote share?

Vote share is the raw percentage of votes a candidate or party receives. Swing is a calculated measure of the movement of support between two parties compared with a previous election. Confusing the two is a common error; the Preston result is usually described in terms of a nine per cent swing away from Labour, derived from the change in vote share since 1997.

Where can I find authoritative UK election results and reporting guidance?

The House of Commons Library publishes research briefings on elections and constituencies, the Electoral Commission provides statutory guidance on election finance and administration, and the NCTJ sets the standard journalism qualifications in the UK. For day-to-day reference, the BBC and Sky News politics sections are widely used, and Wikipedia is a reasonable starting point for cross-checking names and dates.