.......rrright

Critics of the campaign see debt relief as counter-productive and have referred to it as "Make Poverty Permanent", as they do not trust the criteria used to select non-corrupt governments for debt relief - in past cases other third world governments have invested aid money in defence spending and other projects that help the rich and not the poor in these countries. Debt relief and aid are allegedly used to fund lavish lifestyles for the ruling class[1] (although these countries are excluded from the G8 debt relief).
Aid is often structured to help the first world governments giving the aid more than the countries in receipt of it, while the power to change things in these societies is given to western educated people who know nothing about the countries they are meddling in, and often instigate inappropriate ideas that tend to increase rather than decrease levels of suffering. The campaign has also been criticised for accepting some tenets of neoliberalism [2] , though it also has its neoliberal critics, who claim wealth is created only through voluntary free trade, and thus that the "Trade Justice " aim of the campaign is a counter-productive form of protectionism , which will harm the poor more than help them. In Britain some critics, including those in the left of the Labour Party , have criticised the campaign for not being critical enough of the UK government, as they see Tony Blair and Gordon Brown 's support for the campaign as a cynical ploy to move away from criticism of the Iraq war and its protectionist policies. Finally ending poverty is seen as a slogan used by politicians and other groups in order to promote themselves and their alleged superior morality , with no evidence that the political ideas behind these slogans will make any difference to levels of absolute or partial poverty in Africa or