I have mixed feelings about this. If this leads to more investment in local services, then that's good.
I don't like that I haven't seen a clear public debate. In some countries we've seen "there are too many AirBnBs" -> "we need to disincentivise tourism" -> "we need a tourist tax". But that doesn't seem to have happened here (or I've missed it).
Have we decided as a city whether tourism is something we want to incentivise or disincentivise? Of course there are many pros and cons, but it feels to me that we haven't had that debate, and really Westminster is just scrambling to find a new group of "non-working-people" that they can let cities slap a tax on, to avoid funding local government properly.
If the tax was set up as a way to directly combat the effects of tourism, like building more housing, I would probably be more keen.