Search results

De senaste valen är det fler väljare som röstar på ett annat parti än det de gillar bäst, och ett skäl till detta kan vara strategi. I denna rapport analyseras förväntningar, olika strate­gi­ska skäl för röstning och väljarströmmar i riksdagsvalet 2018. Kristdemokraterna står fort­farande ut som ett parti som gynnas av strategisk röstning. En förklaring till detta års uppgång är ett lagom osäkert läge runt spärren i valkampanjens slutskede och fokus på regeringsskifte. Samtidigt var det få som "kastade bort" sina röster och vänster­blocket lyckades denna gång lyckades koordinera sina röster bättre än 2014. Analyserna tyder också på en förhållandevis stor grupp röstade strategiskt på Socialdemokraterna. I valet 2018 röstade 15 procent av väljarkåren på ett annat parti än de eller det parti de sade sig gilla bäst. ; Many Swedes vote for another party than the one he or she likes most, and one reason for this is strategic considerations. This report investigates voters' expectations, reasons to vote strategically and party support shifting in the 2018 Swedish general election. In line with the most recent elections, the small right-wing party Christian Democrats benefited from high shares of strategic votes. This behavior was associated with the party's clear focus on shifting government and having opinion poll levels just at the four percent electoral threshold. Relatively few "wasted" their votes on parties that did finally not reach the electoral threshold. In particular, left-wing voters managed to coordinate their votes better than in the previous election (2014). The analyses also indicate that a relatively large share voted strategically for the Social Democrats. In the 2018 Swedish General Election, 15 percent of the electorate voted for another party than the party or parties they said they preferred.

Status of religious communities -- Constitutional guarantees: a historical overview -- Legal registration of religious communities -- State support for Islamic religious communities -- Muslims in integration laws -- Mosques and prayer houses -- Burial and cemeteries -- Education and schools -- Compulsory education -- Religious education -- Independent schools -- Further and higher (tertiary) education -- Islamic religious education training at universities -- Islamic chaplaincy in public institutions -- Employment, social laws and discrimination -- Religious holidays -- Islamic slaughter and food regulations -- Islamic goods and services -- Islamic dress -- Criminal law -- Male circumcision -- Female genital mutilation -- Forced marriages -- Family law -- Private international law -- Marriage and divorces -- Spouses' matrimonial property rights -- Inheritance law -- Substantive family law -- Marriage -- Divorce -- Spouses' matrimonial property rights -- Inheritance law -- Children -- General considerations -- Islamic custody and fostering in Swedish law -- Bibliography

This review discusses food safety aspects of importance from a One Health perspective, focusing on Europe. Using examples of food pathogen/food commodity combinations, spread of antimicrobial resistance in the food web and the risk of transmission of zoonotic pathogens in a circular system, it demonstrates how different perspectives are interconnected. The chosen examples all show the complexity of the food system and the necessity of using a One Health approach. Food safety resources should be allocated where they contribute most One Health benefits. Data on occurrence and disease burden and knowledge of source attribution are crucial in assessing costs and benefits of control measures. Future achievements in food safety, public health and welfare will largely be based on how well politicians, researchers, industry, national agencies and other stakeholders manage to collaborate using the One Health approach. It can be concluded that closer cooperation between different disciplines is necessary to avoid silo thinking when addressing important food safety challenges. The importance of this is often mentioned, but more proof of concept is needed by the research community.

The European Commission expects the use of biomass for energy in the EU to increase significantly between 2010 and 2020 to meet a legally binding target to cover at least 20% of EU's total energy use from renewable sources in 2020. According to estimates made by the member states of the EU, the direct supply of biomass from forests is expected to increase by 45% on a volume basis between 2006 and 2020 in response to increasing demand (Beurskens LWM, Hekkenberg M, Vethman P. Renewable energy projections as published in the national renewable energy action plans of the European Member states. ECN and EEA; 2011. http://https://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/e10069.pdf [accessed 25.04.2014]; Dees M, Yousef A, Ermert J. Analysis of the quantitative tables of the national renewable energy action plans prepared by the 27 European Union Member States in 2010. BEE working paper D7.2. Biomass Energy Europe project. FELIS Department of Remote Sensing and landscape information Systems, University of Freiburg, Germany; 2011). Our aims were to test the hypotheses that European private forest owners' attitudes towards supplying woody biomass for energy (1) can be explained by their responses to changes in prices and markets and (2) are positive so that the forest biomass share of the EU 2020 renewable energy target can be met. Based on survey data collected in 2010 from 800 private forest owners in Sweden, Germany and Portugal our results show that the respondents' attitudes towards supplying woody biomass for energy cannot be explained as direct responses to changes in prices and markets. Our results, furthermore, imply that European private forest owners cannot be expected to supply the requested amounts of woody biomass for energy to meet the forest biomass share of the EU 2020 renewable energy target, at least if stemwood is to play the important role as studies by Verkerk PJ, Anttila P, Eggers J, Lindner M, Asikainen A. The realisable potential supply of woody biomass from forests in the European Union. For Ecol Manag 2011;261: 2007-2015, UNECE and FAO. The European forest sector outlook study,II 2010-2030. United Nations, New York and Geneva; 2011 [abbreviated to EFSOS II] and Elbersen B, Staritsky I, Hengeveld G, Schelhaas MJ, Naeff H, Bottcher H. Atlas of EU biomass potentials; 2012. Available from: http://www.biomassfutures.eu [accessed 14.10.2013] suggest. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.