Lost in the local newspapers’ laudatory coverage of the latest provincial budget was a new poll that puts the BC NDP level with the BC Liberals at 40% support among decided voters. It’s the highest the NDP has been in the polls since 1996; a stunning return for a party that was almost annihilated at the last election.

What is striking about the poll is a large disparity between male and female voters. About 50% of men favour the Liberals, with about 30% opposing. Among women, almost the exact opposite is the case. It’s women, to put it simply, who are bringing the New Democrats back from the dead.

Of course, the pundits trot out the usual explanation; women are concerned about ‘soft’ NDP-ish issues, like health care and social programs, while men are focused on Liberal guy stuff like the economy. This pat explanation always struck me as a bit lame, and I’m convinced there’s something more underlying the recent poll results.

I think the numbers can partly be accounted for by the fact that the sectors of society that are most often on the receiving end of the Campbell government's more belligerent actions tend to be female-dominated. One example is hospital workers. Laying off unionized health support workers and then hiring them back at half the rate of pay in contracted-out arrangements was something we’re supposed to see as good management. But we know by now that when it comes to watching your tax dollars, this is a government that picks its spots.

A Prince George BC Liberal party supporter gets a $400,000 debt written off by the government. The provincial Auditor General investigates incidents wherein fish farm operators who have contributed to the BC Liberal party have had government penalties and back rent written off. The boys club of a construction industry--the same guys who helped bring us the leaky condo crisis--are in line for multi-millions in Olympic construction contracts. Oh, by the way, it appears that Dick Pound, the former Vice President of the International Olympic Committee, has accused Gordon Campbell of "hijacking" the process by which the CEO of the 2010 Olympic organizing committee is selected. Campbell made sure that an associate of his of got the job. I guess he needs one of his own boys in place when it comes to handing out all that public money. Is it a coincidence that the BC Liberals draw their political fixers and bagmen from the same sleazy ranks as the scandal-plagued federal Liberal party?

Think about all of this, and use it as context for the Liberal assertion that pushing down health care workers' wages has to do with sound business practice.

“All they do is clean,” the Liberals will tell you of the hospital workers. No need to pay a unionized wage for that. But I can say from regrettably extensive first-hand observation that they do a hell of a lot more than just clean. Much of the day-to-day (or hour-to-hour) care of patients, especially those in long-term wards, is conducted by support workers. They're the ones that tend to the feeding, hygiene and even the spirits of many of the patients, and if you think this is an 'anyone can do it' kind of job, try it yourself some time. Far from being a case of sound management, it's simply part of a short-term plan to help Finance Minister Gary Collins parade a pre-election, headline-grabbing ‘balanced’ budget, a feat that could have been accomplished with relative ease had Collins not jumped the gun with an extravagant and premature tax cut on the heels of taking office.

Another example is the public vilification of the ferry workers. Again, the "all they do is cook/clean" argument comes up. That kind of slag is obviously not aimed the guys on the lower deck who are directing your car, but at the largely female staff in the passenger areas. Funny that you rarely hear that all a teamster does is lift boxes. But then the teamsters are mostly guys, and they would likely fight back hard. This, unexpectedly, is also what the ferry workers did. But not before they were subjected to a level of vitriol like something out of Salem Massachusetts, circa 1692. How much of the derision they receive was made a little sharper by the fact that their leader is a woman? The local papers, sneering as ever, made a special point of letting the public know that she was once one of the rank-and-file table-clearing wenches. Doesn't the bitch know her place? I wonder how many women sat quietly in front of the TV set during that dispute, maybe not particularly sympathetic to the union, but recognizing a contemptuous and nasty tone in how its members were being portrayed.

There is something overbearing about this government; a pushy, bullying smugness embodied by Gordon Campbell himself. The only time anyone has every really liked this guy, ironically, is when he appeared humbled and penitent in the wake of his drunk driving conviction. Now he's back to his old prick self, pushing an agenda that dishes out goodies to his cronies and platitudes about making 'tough choices' to everyone else. It's possible, even likely, that the poll numbers--and perhaps the gender disparity they reveal--will change over the next little while. For now, though, it appears that it's the men in this province who are being seduced by the soft stuff, Olympic promises and the like, while the women are the ones who recognize the hard realities of a society that leans on them for some of its dirtiest jobs, and then looks to them first when the belt-tightening begins.

There is much talk among conservative political pundits these days about what they like to call the ‘nanny state.’ For those who aren’t regular perusers of the right-wing media, the nanny state is generally used to describe a society in which the government takes an active role in social and economic affairs.

One of the more ardent nanny state naysayers is a Canadian named Mark Steyn. A prolific and ubiquitous newspaper columnist, Steyn is a self-described 'pro-Washington madman’ who has largely abandoned his native land for the 'live free or die' state of New Hampshire. His is a witty and engaging writer, and is emerging as the standard bearer of the political right; he is frequently lauded by right-wing bloggers as the best of the conservative pundits.

He recently wrote a piece on the late Swedish foreign minster Anna Lindh, who was murdered last September. Noting that Lindh was stabbed in a busy department store, and that none of the bystanders jumped to accost the killer as he ran off, Steyn concluded that their reticence was the product of living in socialist Sweden. The Swedish welfare state, went Steyn's argument, had created a 'culture of passivity.'

Ah yes, of course. Try to make a link between your average workplace gun massacre and lax firearm restrictions and a guy like Steyn will be all over you with charges of quack sociology, but he has no problem drawing a straight line between the freak murder of a politician in Stockholm and Swedish social policy. Don’t let all those robust hockey players deceive you, it appears the place is some kind of cross between Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ and Fritz Lang’s ‘Metropolis;’ a society of dozy automatons too stupefied to throw themselves in front of a knife.

Steyn’s thesis seems a bit of a stretch. Look right here in Vancouver. We live in one of the more liberal cities in a country he often derides as a 'decayed dominion' beset by 'Euro-statism,' yet we've seen some notable acts of bravery from what should, by his reasoning, be an utterly passive citizenry. Think of Anthony McNaughton a few years ago, or the recent heroics of Rachel Davis, both losing their lives while intervening in violent attacks. Or Langley schoolteacher Mohamed Chelali, the guy who went to Paris on holiday and ended up wrestling with the would-be assassin of Jacques Chirac after he fired a shot at the French leader during the last Bastille Day parade. (Of course, saving Chirac’s ass won’t exactly win you kudos from the North American political right.)

Nonetheless, pundits like Steyn make a good living on routine denouncements of the supposed corroding effects of the the state upon its citizens in places like Sweden and Canada. Nothing like a good nanny state diatribe when you’re not raging against the French, decrying the perceived bias of the New York Times and the BBC, or sneering at the remonstrations of Sean Penn.

It was a bit surprising therefore, to see Andrew Sullivan, a much read blogger and columnist who is generally sympathetic to many conservative ideas, turn his sights on an unlikely target---the American government. In a 'Time' magazine article entitled ‘Nanny in Chief,’ Sullivan pilloried the man right-wingers like Steyn have hailed as their savior from the smothering stench of the nanny’s diapers; George W. Bush himself.

“When your individual choices conflict with what the Bush people think is good for you,” wrote Sullivan, “they have been only too happy to intervene. The government, Bush clearly believes, has a right to be involved in many personal decisions you make — punishing some, encouraging others, nudging and prodding the public to live the good life as the President understands it.”

Sullivan concludes that Bush is “fusing Big Government liberalism with religious-right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash. Your cash, that is. And their morals.”

Good grief. Sweden, Canada, America...will the real nanny state please stand up? Sullivan apparently received a bunch of testy e-mails from the neo-con crowd. He’s always been a bit of renegade amongst conservatives, espousing things like gay marriage on the basis of equality and freedom of choice. Perhaps it’s because he’s not one of the true blue conservative club that he can step outside of the politics-as-team-sports mentality. The fact is, he has a point, and whether one agrees with him or not he is at least consistent enough to apply his anti-big government philosophy across the board.

Not so with a large chunk of the right-wing media. Clustered around their man Bush like a Praetorian guard around a Roman emperor, they are relatively relaxed as they watch a president who allows deficits to balloon, tariffs walls to be raised, privacy-invading legislation to be enacted, and programs to be put in place that allow the U.S. government to use tax dollars to leverage the kind of personal behavior deemed appropriate by the ruling party.

Always self-described champions of individual liberty, the position of many on the right seems as follows: If an expansion of state influence originates with your political enemies, it's cause for outrage and contempt. If it starts with your political friends, you let it slide.

Talk about a culture of passivity.

“The Christmas movies are all gone,” I overheard one clerk at the video store say to another.

I figured I’d ask anyway. “Do you have ‘The Lion in Winter?’”

They did. I suppose they don’t consider it to be a Christmas movie; like my definition of ‘Blues,’ my definition of what constitutes a Yuletide film differs from everyone else’s. And yet ‘The Lion in Winter’ is one of the great Christmas films.

The movie centers on England’s King Henry II, and his efforts to establish the terms of his succession. A powerful man in life, he sought to control events after his death as well.

Described by Winston Churchill as “the very greatest King that England ever knew,” Henry II was a 12th Century dynamo who built the prototype of the modern state when he wasn’t warring, negotiating or marrying his way to ever-greater power. He consolidated his grip on England, then established dominion over much of France; as a feudal warlord in control of the richest French provinces, he was more powerful in that country than the reigning French sovereign.

His wife, Eleanor, from the French province of Aquitaine, was the annulled queen of Louis the VII of France. Eleven years older than Henry, tough, beautiful and brilliant, she still ranks as one of the most powerful women in history. Estranged from Henry later in their marriage, she plotted with his eldest son, Richard, to seize the throne. Henry threw her in jail and kept her there for sixteen years.

‘The Lion in Winter’ takes place on Christmas Eve, 1183. Henry has given Eleanor a reprieve from captivity, and brought her to the French fortress of Chenon, where he has also summoned Richard and his two other male heirs, Geoffrey and John. They are all joined by Philip II, who has recently inherited the French crown. Philip’s younger sister Alais is also present; she is betrothed to Richard, but Henry has grabbed her as his mistress. The aging patriarch wishes to establish some familial order and take a pre-emptive shot at establishing his legacy.

They are a dysfunctional family for the ages. The film, scripted by playwright James Goldman and released in 1968, is full of wit and invective. Indeed, if there’s a flaw it’s that near the end of the 160 minute flick the viewer is almost as worn out by all the verbal jousting as the characters themselves.

The film’s two stars, Peter O’Toole and Katherine Hepburn, eat up the scenery with a couple of the most flamboyant performances in film. They are supported by, among others, future James Bond Timothy Dalton and a young, Welsh-accented Anthony Hopkins, who is especially good in his screen debut.

The movie was actually O’Toole’s project. He was, in the mid-Sixties, a newly-coronated superstar, his most notable appearance being the title role of David Lean’s 1963 epic ‘Lawrence of Arabia.’ He knew playing Henry II would be a great vehicle, and knew equally that the role of Eleanor would be a plum part for any actress.

He snagged Hepburn for the female lead, and recruited Englishman Anthony Harvey to direct. The latter was a curious choice. Harvey had made only one film; an shortish art house piece called ‘The Dutchman.’ Most of Harvey’s experience in film was as an editor, cutting his teeth under the exacting standards of Stanley Kubrick in ‘Dr. Strangelove’ and ‘Lolita.’

Perhaps O’Toole and Hepburn figured they were getting a pliant sophomore who would let them run the show. Or maybe O’Toole saw a young director whose taste for clever dialogue and some swagger in the acting was akin to his own.

Once in charge, though, Harvey added some key elements to the picture, the most striking of which is the beautiful yet primitive ambience he creates. Shot by Douglas Slocombe, it is a lovely looking film, but its visual flourishes do not smother an underlying austerity that pervades the work and counterbalances the raging performances.

Many of the film’s subjects have become the stuff of legend. In addition to Henry and Eleanor, their sons Richard (the Lionheart) and John (the nefarious villain of the Robin Hood tales) are among the most storied characters English history has ever produced.

But Harvey manages to place them all in the context, even at the mercy, of their time. ‘The Lion in Winter’ does not, like many historical films, leave you with the idea that the characters have running water, central heating and microwave ovens.

Filmed in various locations in France, Wales and Ireland, the interiors are cold and stark. Fireplaces blaze constantly, candles are always flickering. Dogs roam cluttered courtyards and stone corridors, nobles eat on benches, courtiers and soldiers sleep on straw.

One of the most arresting scenes takes place early in the film. There is a large bowl of water. A half-inch thick layer of ice has crusted over the surface. A hand plunges in, grabs the ice in one piece, and tosses it aside.

The hand is Henry’s. He has risen in the morning, and he proceeds to wash his face. The bowl is in his room; it’s his washbasin. He may be ‘the greatest power in a thousand years,’ but he wakes to a frigid house, washes in stale ice water, and breakfasts on dry porridge and bread.

Eight-hundred years on, the descendants of the lowest of his subjects enjoy a lifestyle he couldn’t have conceived of.

It’s a conclusion the film leaves you to draw yourself, but it’s a conclusion nonetheless. And one as hopeful as you’ll find in any Christmas movie.