Talk:Arms-length management organisation

ALMO vs. TMO

The reasons given as to why a TMO and an ALMO are broadly the same consist of a list of reasons why they are different. There should be two separate headings or two separate pages instead of this assumption that they are "broadly the same". Fanx 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no assumption, it is a matter of fact that they are broadly the same. There are minor, technical differences which have been pointed out in the article. You seem to be implying that by stating "broadly the same" i mean "identical", which I do not. Tibi08 08:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not that similar and many TMO residents who find they are being forced into an ALMO don't see the similarity either. A TMO (100% tenant managed) may transform itself into an ALMO, it is much less likely that an ALMO (33% tenant managed) will transform into a TMO - I'm not sure it is even permitted. Fanx 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people don't find black and white people similar, but at the end of the day they are broadly the same except skin colour. I think you are a little bias and should step back from this one. Sorry. Tibi08 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TMOs and ALMOs are not similar. The distinguishing characteristic of a TMO is that it is owned and controlled by the tenants. This is not true of an ALMO, where tenants are in the minority. Moreover, TMOs normally arise from tenant initiatives, whilst ALMOs are a central government initiative. I'm amazed to see that TMO redirects here! If they were really similar, why do they have separate national organisations? You can be sure no ALMO would ever be eligible to be in the NFTMO!Samatarou (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkfarm & POV

This article already had a "linkfarm" tag, meaning there were too many external links - as I noticed the list was getting longer I deleted the whole section - Wikipedia is not a collection of irrelevant links. Fanx 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Tibi08 08:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not want link farm, so just take the links off, but a list of ALMO/TMO's is useful, as its very hard to find TMO's and ALMO's. I was researching this area and found it the only way to get a list of ALMO's. Now, you can't tell which government agencies use ALMO's and TMO's as its hard to distinguish them from councils.

I think Fanx should not be allowed to edit these pages as he stated in an message to me that "TMO's and ALMO's think they are the best thing since slice bread" this show this guy has some sort of motive against these organization. Please if you have a relevant criticism of them then add them to the page. (unsigned comment posted 10:26, 11 January 2007 by 217.196.234.173)

If you weren't being serious, I'd think this was a joke - a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia is that we assume good faith. There is no requirement that states wikipedians must have no opinions on the subjects they are writing about, the only requirement is that we edit in an NPOV manner and that we don't include original research (see below). I don't think there is any evidence that I haven't followed this rule in the year I have been signed up here. Of course ALMOs think they are worthy organisations - can you suggest any that think they aren't a good idea? No - turkeys don't generally vote for Xmas.

BTW, government agencies don't use ALMOs or TMOs, the "sliced bread" comment was on you talk page and has not been mentioned in this article or on this talk page until now. Fanx 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV! exactly! fact that you describe ALMO/TMO in a very derogatory manner, without any facts for your personal grievance shows you don't have a NPOV. Far as I can see the article nether promotes or denigrates ALMO, just saying how they work and what they do, you are trying to bring your personal opinions and politics in to this article (see below). Actually the article states that this type pf housing management is still unproven for long term improvement, which should cover the fact that not everyone agrees with it, without needing to bring in how the Labour Party Conference voted .

Your message to me "list is not helpful for research as it represents a one-sided view only (all ALMOs & TMOs think they are the best thing since sliced bread)" shows your edit was not from a NPOV as you justifyed it using a non-NPOV statment, anyway how does a list represent any view??? I think you not wanting a list of ALMO’s has more to do with your dislike of them, trying not to publicise ALMO’s, then keeping Wiki tidy.

“ALMOs think they are worthy organizations - can you suggest any that think they aren't a good idea? No - turkeys don't generally vote for Xmas.” Please go to the Audit commission or Office of the Deputy Prim Ministers to get a neutral assessment of ALMO’s and their performance.

Also, I was using the term “agencies” the broader term, meaning entities linked to government (local/national, i.e. councils). (unsigned comment posted 14:35, 12 January 2007 by 217.196.234.173)

Err, no I didn't ... describe anything in a derogatory manner. All I said was that ALMOs think they are a good thing and that having a page of links to organisations that are all saying how good they're doing doesn't give any balance. Facts, such as tenants voting against ALMOs even when they know that a No-vote means forfeiture of multihundredmillion pound government financing, suggest that this is a highly charged issue and that this should be addressed here. How do these facts get misinterpreted by you as my personal opinion? I am not bringing my personal anything to this discussion - wikipedians, as I stated, are allowed opinions as long as they don't try to insert those opinions into any articles. I clearly haven't done that, no matter how you choose to misread my editing or any comments on talk pages.

BTW, "agencies" is not a broader term for councils, agency suggests DCLG or similar - it helps understanding if you use correct terminology.

You should really stop this abuse before I point out to anyone that thinks you may have a point that your IP address has been posting homophobic vandalism on wikipedia (and no, it isn't a public IP address). Instead of attacking me I suggest you concentrate your efforts on the article - I shall not respond to your hostility any more, I'll report it instead. Fanx 17:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you prove my point, fact is you have a angle on this issue to stop ALMO's making themselves look good, why don't you just add your issues about ALMO's (that you say will ballance the article) on there and leave for other to judge or you should leave the article alone for others to edit.

This isn't abuse, its called a discussion. No idea what your on about regarding other edits, you can report it to anyone you like if that makes you happy.

I was using the term agency in the broader sense, in terms on the english language, e.g. an organization, company, or bureau that provides some service for another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.196.234.173 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If I may step in between the two children as an impartial bystander, I think that links are not necessary but the list of ALMOs and TMOs is useful. As pointed out, this information is hard to come by. Tibi08 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Federation of ALMOS website which the entry already links to has a fairly comprehensive list of ALMOS with links. Couldn't it just refer to that? Andehandehandeh 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article portrays ALMOs in an excessively positive light, hence the "POV" tag. As with any government policy there is a substantial body of criticism. The article needs a counterpoint. Fanx 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the purpose of the second paragraph under the 'Initiatives' section... Tibi08 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that touches on some minor points it doesn't inform that the government is withholding housing finance from local authorities whose tenants refuse to vote for ALMOs. It doesn't hint that two Labour Party conferences have voted overwhelmingly for the fourth way, and it doesn't address the commonly held fear that this ALMO-isation is privatisation by the back door. This article needs a "Criticisms" section - "Initiatives" doesn't carry quite the same weight. I'd like to work on this article but as I work in a peripheral branch of my local authority's housing & regeneration department I need to be sure that I don't include any info that is unverified or could be deemed original research. Fanx 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments, some of which are interesting, but overall I am happy with the current entry which doesn't wade into political debate. Providing additional funding via ALMOs is a very different thing to 'withholding finance' from councils not adopting ALMOs. Your stance is very bias, a whole lot more so than the current article. Tibi08 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock transfer and management companies

Wouldn't it be helpful for clarity to have a page which discusses ALMOs, TMOs, PFIs, retention and LSVTs as alternatives following stock option appraisals rather than a page headed ALMO which then rather confusingly starts talking about TMOs? Apepch7 23:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PFI is a more general term than just for stock option appraisals. Perhaps there should be a page on the decent homes standard which talks about these options, but given that this entry is entitled 'ALMO' it should be about ALMOs. TMOs are fairly similar to ALMOs but I would understand if someone wanted to move it to it's own page. Tibi08 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about PFIs which cover all sorts of things apart from housing. I feel that the whole ethos and purpose of a TMO is different to an ALMO but I accept that there are examples where they are very similar.Apepch7 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven success of ALMOs

I wonder if the section in the main article which says that the effectiveness of ALMOs is unproven is now out of date. Most of the organisations rated 3* by the Audit Commission are ALMOs and so it would be fair to say that many are delivering real improvements for customers. While pay scales are probably closer to LAs than RSLs is it true that this is causing rapid staff turnover?Apepch7 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would also ask whether the staff turnover is relevant at all? I think there could be an argument that much of the criticism of ALMOS is driven by an understandable wish for local authority housing staff to preserve their working conditions rather than the actual service to tenants provided. Most of the Wiki articles that touch on UK social housing seem to have have a lot of un-referenced criticisms following the line of the pressure group Defend Council Housing. Andehandehandeh 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to rewrite this page with facts rather than opinions - also need to include latest government messages about Councils building again.Apepch7 09:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and the way forward

This article clearly has NPOV elements, particularly in the "Initiatives" section, where statements are made as fact without any references. The way to resolve this issue is to create a "Criticisms" heading and take the POV elements to there so that the main body can be NPOV. Fig (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arm's-length management organisations (name punctuation)

CLG refer to ALMOs without the apostrophe or hyphen. The National Federation of ALMOs uses both. Although I'm inclined to think that the NFA version is more grammatically accurate, I think it's probably sensible to use the CLG name as the main one and list the NFA version as an alternative. Jamse (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arms-length management organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410230754/http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk:80/dch/dch_ALMOs.cfm to http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/dch_ALMOs.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arms-length management organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205045944/http://defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/ to http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed on this article

The article does not address the stated reason for the introduction of Almos (the decent homes standard and the needs to achieve it by 2020) under the communities plan in 2003 (I have tried and so far failed to find full copy of the Plan online). Nor does it address the Gov decisions made after 2010 effectively depriving management by Almo of any funding advantages. Nor are the additional costs of Almos via duplication of services referred to. In how many cases did Almo lead to stock transfer? Overall at present, thsi has the housing managers' perspactive, and not even central govt perspective or the tenant anti-privisation critics. Partridgebirdie (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]