In this case it is used exactly for its intended purpose, which is to encourage furnished holiday lets.

AirBnb does not directly benefit from this. The property owners do.

The issue is that the number of holiday lets has exploded thanks to AirBnb so now they no longer want to encourage them, or at least the purely AirBnb type.

It is another tax but without the tax label. Now we call it "Closing a loophole for the greedy Tech companies".

If true that's even more convoluted than I would have guessed. And I agree with the other comment; if you want to subsidize b&bs but you instead subsidize furnished rentals, it's on you when it's treated as a furnished rentals subsidy.

I used to think that

But I’ve seen single words changed in budget appropriation bills that completely altered a tax reality in any observer’s favor, that no politician read

Fun game, hard for me to draw a clear distinction on what’s a loophole or not. If the government says my “fair share” is 0% fine by me.