Downing Street has published a list of 34 new political peerages, including 25 for Labour, five for the Liberal Democrats and three for the Conservatives, in a move intended to strengthen the government’s position in the House of Lords as it advances its legislative programme.

The appointments, set out in an official document titled “Political Peerages December 2025” released on Wednesday, mark the largest single batch of Labour nominations since Keir Starmer entered No 10 after the 2024 general election. They come as the government pushes flagship plans on workers’ rights, planning and renters’ reform through a second chamber where the Conservatives remain the largest party.

According to the list, Starmer has put forward 25 new Labour peers, Ed Davey has nominated five Liberal Democrats, and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has three new Tory appointments. A further name, the crossbench hereditary peer the Earl of Kinnoull, is being granted a life peerage to allow him to remain in the Lords once Labour’s bill to abolish hereditary peers takes effect.

The Labour list combines long‑serving party staff and advisers with business, civic and local government figures. Among the most high‑profile names is Richard Walker, the executive chair of supermarket chain Iceland, who previously backed the Conservatives before switching his support to Labour. Other nominees include former London Fire Commissioner Andy Roe, now chair of the Building Safety Regulator; Dame Ann Limb, an education and civil society leader; and Lewisham mayor Brenda Dacres.

Several of Starmer’s and chancellor Rachel Reeves’s close aides are also being elevated. They include Matthew Doyle, the prime minister’s former communications chief; Michael Barber, Starmer’s adviser on delivery and a former Blair‑era “targets tsar”; Katie Martin, a senior adviser to Reeves; and Carol Linforth, a long‑time Labour official. Labour figures argue that bringing experienced operators into the Lords will improve scrutiny and help drive government policy, while opponents say it underlines the extent of political patronage.

Badenoch’s three Conservative choices underline the party’s cultural and ideological priorities. They include Sharron Davies, the former Olympic swimmer and prominent campaigner on women’s sport; historian and columnist Simon Heffer; and Sir John Redwood, the veteran Thatcher‑era minister and former MP. The Lib Dems’ nominees include former MP and minister Sarah Teather; party chief executive Mike Dixon; Ed Davey’s former chief of staff Rhiannon Leaman; and two existing hereditary peers, Dominic Hubbard (Lord Addington) and John Russell (the Earl Russell), who are being converted into life peers.

The new intake adds to what is already one of the world’s largest legislative chambers. Before Wednesday’s announcement, the Lords had more than 800 members, with some estimates placing the total close to 850. After the latest round, press tallies suggest the Conservatives will have about 285 peers, Labour around 234, the Liberal Democrats 78, and crossbenchers roughly 177, along with bishops and other non‑affiliated members. No party will have an overall majority, but Labour’s representation will move closer to that of the Conservatives.

Those headline figures are expected to change again if Labour’s House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill passes. The legislation would remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers, who are currently elected by their own number, a group that is disproportionately Conservative and crossbench. By granting life peerages to Kinnoull and two Liberal Democrat hereditaries, ministers and party leaders are preserving selected expertise and party strength while still planning to abolish the hereditary category as a whole.

Labour presents the new appointments as a necessary “rebalancing” after what it says were years of heavy Conservative use of the patronage system, particularly under David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Party sources argue that without bolstering its numbers, the government risks repeated defeats or delays to manifesto commitments in a chamber where crossbenchers and Conservatives can combine to amend or block legislation.

The timing has already drawn political fire. The peerages were confirmed on the same day Conservatives used Commons time to censure Reeves over budget leaks and tax policy changes, part of a wider attack on what they describe as Labour “cronyism and incompetence”. Tory figures complain that while their party receives just three new peers, the Liberal Democrats – with far fewer MPs – gain five, and Reform UK none, despite its national vote share, reinforcing their claim that the appointments system is being used to entrench the existing parties.

Constitutional reform groups criticised the move as inflating an already “bloated” and unelected chamber. Organisations such as the Electoral Reform Society have long argued that simply adding more life peers, from any party, deepens concerns about legitimacy. Polling by academic researchers has suggested that only a very small proportion of the public support limited changes such as removing hereditary peers alone, with a clear majority favouring stronger controls on prime ministerial appointments and wider reform of the second chamber.

The new list also highlights a tension in Labour’s own position. In opposition, Starmer described the Lords as “indefensible” and pledged ultimately to replace it with a more representative second chamber. The party’s 2024 manifesto stopped short of full abolition in a single term, instead promising “immediate modernisation” – including ending hereditary seats, introducing a retirement age of 80, tightening attendance rules and strengthening standards – while leaving the door open to more sweeping changes later. With Wednesday’s round, Starmer will have appointed around 60 peers since entering office, even as his government explores cross‑party talks on reducing the overall size of the Lords.

For now, the new names will give ministers additional votes and expertise as key bills return to the upper house in the coming months. But the scale and composition of the list ensure that the wider argument over how Britain’s second chamber is appointed – and how large it should be – will remain a live political issue long after these peerages take effect.