Letting the poor take action to help themselves

SIR – The tragic fire at Grenfell Tower has triggered much analysis of our social structures and the loss of cohesion (Comment, June 18).

The demutualisation of many co-operatives, building societies, friendly societies, mutual banks, and industrial and provident societies took place in a short period after 1975.

These bodies once offered cheap products to people of modest means, overseen by a close relationship with their members. Throughout the 19th century, home ownership grew and self-reliance was encouraged through sick-pay schemes and other forms of collective aid. Today, however, the state has become the most important provider of security.

The remaining mutual institutions compete with banks and large insurance groups. The latter are geared chiefly toward profit, rather than satisfying members’ long-term needs. Only small margins are available from modest contracts, from which costly regulatory burdens cannot be met. Thus it has become really hard for the poor to get started on the road to independence.

New mechanisms are required which capture the hopes and aspirations of people of modest means. New or reinvigorated mutuals are part of the answer to regaining opportunities for those on lower incomes. Peter Gray

Tunbridge Wells, Kent

SIR – I have worked as a health visitor in overcrowded, inner-London Kensington. While it may be the richest borough, it faces arguably the greatest complexities.

Much of the population, both wealthy and poor, is extremely transient and mostly from abroad. Bankers and embassy staff reside in private rented accommodation in the south, while migrants are in social housing in the north. Asylum seekers and homeless people are scattered throughout the borough. The pressure on services and resources such as hospitals, schools and housing is huge. The situation is overwhelming and uniquely difficult to manage. Juliet Buckley London N5