... is that he fails to mention that many (most) of those who enjoy the low tracker rate paid boom prices for their properties and consequently have much, much higher mortgages.
That is a very poor argument.
The repayments on a 35 year tracker mortgage for a value of X are the same as that of a 20 year standard variable mortgage of half X. So even if the value of the property has dropped by 50%, the holder of the tracker mortgage still makes the same monthly payment as someone who has bought the same house with a variable rate mortgage now at half its original cost. The holder of the tracker mortgage is effectively no worse off in terms of repayments and thus affordability.
When banks loses money, we, as taxpayers their owners, all lose. Banks loses money because of a portfolio of smaller commercial property loans - the larger ones having gone to NAMA, poor quality mortgages, especially buy-to-let, and tracker mortgages. Banks have to increase their standard variable rate to subsidise those on loss-making tracker mortgages. A bank’s portfolio of tracker mortgage represent a hurdle of built-in losses that has to be overcome before any profits can be generated. These subsidies are ultimately being provided by the taxpayer. If we want banks to have any value so they can generate some return when they are sold, it is in all our interests to develop a mechanism to allow tracker rates to be increased. The burden is not being shared. Those with tracker mortgages are being insulated from interest rate increases.
You cannot on the one hand criticise banks for increasing their standard variable rates and on the other allow tracker mortgages to remain protected.
The more losses banks incurs the more they must be subsidised by the taxpayer.
So why should holders of tracker mortgages be insulated from burden sharing?
This is creating one more group of people who are being given special treatment and insulated from the consequences of their actions.