Following the vote in Parliament to approve a 4 week Natioanl lockdown John commented on his feelings about the situation and the vote. 

John said: "I have just voted to endorse the lockdown proposals put forward by the Prime Minister with the heaviest of hearts. I did not come into politics to take away individuals’ rights. I did not come into politics to see hospitality and other businesses go the wall. I want them to thrive. The data used by the Government’s chief scientific and medical advisers may have been out-of-date and even flawed at the weekend. The R number may well have come down a bit. I do not trust predictive science to set out the parameters of what we can and cannot do. I trust individuals to make decisions for themselves and for those around them. From what I have seen a proportionate approach to the Tier system was beginning to work. I have also listened to the views of constituents who asked me not to vote for the lockdown and I have had sympathy for those views. But at the end of the day if we have saved even one life by making this lockdown happen it will have been worth it.  To my mind, there was enough doubt sowed as to the effect of the virus particularly on those over 65, on our hospitals and on the death rate to justify taking these measures. What makes these measures different from those proposed before and those for example proposed for Oxfordshire was the end date to them. It was clear that if, for some reason, an additional extension was required beyond 2nd December a motion would have to be put to the House before then and voted on.  These are all difficult decisions. How can you set a human life against a lifetime’s business? How can you judge where the balance lies?  None of us who voted ‘aye’ did so with enthusiasm. We did so knowing that it puts the reputation of the advisers used by Government firmly on the line and hopefully brings closer a potential vaccine."