Why Lord Ashcroft proves that in the Big Society, money still talks

Earlier this month, Lord Ashcroft finally agreed to give up his non-dom status - remarkable given it was widely thought he'd agreed to a decade ago - so he could remain in the House of Lords.

It's always bothered me, though, what Lord Ashcroft hoped to get back from bankrolling the Tories over the years. Prior to the general election, William Hague and others made much use of Lord Ashcroft's private jet. The Guardian reports that Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, was another to benefit.

David Cameron has always painted Lord Ashcroft as a man who believes in the Conservative cause, and rejected suggestions a ministerial role would be his reward. So what is?

Yesterday, it emerged that following lobbying by Lord Ashcroft, Mitchell's international aid department had signed off to spend more than £100million building an airport at St Helena, a tiny Atlantic island which is part of the UK.

Labour had committed to fund this project, but then put it on hold when reviewing budgets last year. At a time when Labour was still promising to spend much more than the Tories across the board, does it not strike you as odd that the Tories can suddenly put so much emphasis on an airport - prices vary between £100million and £300million - which will benefit 4,000 people?

Of course it's a worthwhile project, but where does this fit in with the 'feel the pain' strategy the Tories are inflicting on the public in the UK? Oddly for a government normally so keen to stick prices in press releases when announcing savings, there's no mention of the cost in the DfID press release.

To put it in context with what is happening at home, £250million would pay for a fair few of the schools which needed rebuilding the most to get their wish. Some figures suggested the axing of BSF would save £1billion (although there's a risk of £2bn of litigation from firms suddenly without work). So for the cost of a quarter of BSF schools axed, an airport is being built on an island which, while needing improved access to the world, certainly isn't at the top of the most deprived countries.

No-one, I'm sure, opposes funding international development, but the fact the Tories performed a policy u-turn on behalf of the government like this at a time of slashing elsewhere will bring fresh questions over the influence of Lord Ashcroft.

Lord Ashcroft appeared on Five Live yesterday to talk about St Helena, but after being asked twice how he thought people in the UK would feel about this at a time of cuts, he hung up, saying it was a question for the politicians. But these are politicians he has helped get into power, and politicians who represent the party he holds high office in. Is he really so arrogant as to believe he shouldn't be held accountable for the campaigning he does? He is, after all, a member of the House of Lords.

Cameron needs to get a grip here. He can't expect people to take him seriously when talking about giving us all the chance to make a difference when on one hand his government has deprived tens of thousands of students a decent school building while allowing his government to spend millions on a project which just happens to be supported by Lord Ashcroft. Or is the real message in Big Society that the bigger your wallet, the bigger your impact on society?