Hi Josh, sorry for my delay in responding. I would push further on a couple of interlocking points. 1. On “unsuitability”, I don’t think the main problem is MPs lacking pre-existing expertise or struggling with fast moving technology. They can bring in experts, and committees should help them scrutinise competing claims. What they cannot outsource is the judgement to decide whom to trust, which trade offs to accept and what Britain should actually do. British politicians in this era are absolutely dross at trade offs on almost all fronts - from AI to foreign policy to cutting welfare to defence. Judgement is a tacit knowledge picked up from balancing risk exposure, expertise, and accountability and consequences. 2. That sits within a wider problem: the political class, including Westminster journalism, is highly responsive to signals about what counts as a respectable or ‘high status’ opinion. In parts of Westminster, discussing how to restrain AI seems to confer seriousness more readily than discussing how Britain might benefit from it partly because regulation is a familiar political language, smuggled in under the usual “we’ll make this fair for Britain” shite. Building a credible programme around adoption, public services and technological capability demands more unfamiliar thinking because it demands trade offs, which in turn demands tacit knowledge of how to even articulate and balance a trade off. 3. This is where I’d be harder on the quality of the political class. Too many are more practised at positioning themselves within a debate than at making and defending consequential choices - the trade offs. Experience delivering a project, managing people or being accountable for an outcome under real constraints would help but again not many of our political class come from careers in the private sector that require this (I don’t count public affairs in this). The issue is whether they can move from commentary to decisions, and they often can’t. 4. On the left, we recently had a Chair of an influential Committee use the framing “tech bros.” It is 2026! Treating Dario Amodei and Elon Musk as interchangeable obscures differences that should matter to policy and is just supremely lazy and dumb virtue signalling - let’s say the left views this blob as an ‘enemy’ of sorts - it should want to know more about how to divide them or gain leverage! Concern about concentrated corporate power is legitimate but a progressive AI programme also needs answers about who receives the gains, how workers gain bargaining power and how public services improve, not just use Cambridge Analytica frameworks. Hostility to the people building the technology cannot supply those answers even if it gets clips and RTs. 5. On the right, the same weakness appears in discussions of sovereignty and the US and Chinese technology stacks. What does Britain need to control? What can we buy? Which dependencies are we prepared to accept, and what would reducing them cost? Sorting the world into goodies and baddies may feel good but doesn’t do anything useful beyond that really. 6. On “no votes in AI”, I take your distinction between mobilising fear and winning support for serious engagement. But today’s electoral incentives aren’t fixed conditions and AI could become politically central through jobs, energy bills and public services without voters ever naming “AI” as their leading concern, so I think the MP you quote here a wally. 7. Politicians have a role in making those connections and offering a programme people can support, otherwise, “there are no votes in AI” risks becoming an explanation for their own failure to articulate one, and when this happens, they will just import US discourse - see Polanski and data centres.