Why is Labour filling the Lords with its own peers?

There must be some irony, if not perhaps a hint of spite, in the fact that the House of Lords is causing the government some legislative difficulty just as the very last of the hereditary peers are shuffling out of the chamber.

- SEAN O'GRADY

Their places are to be taken by a new set of 34 peers, overwhelmingly Labour in their allegiance. It has all caused a bit of a kerfuffle in their lordships' house.

Why are so many of the new peers Labour?

First, prime ministers formally nominate peers, and there is a natural tendency to show favouritism, leading to the perception that such positions are influenced by party political factors, including donors.

Second, Labour's landslide majority in the Commons alongside the Tories' correspondingly denuded numbers – gives rise to a feeling that an influx of Labour-leaning Lords might better represent the broader political picture. Even with the addition of 25 new Labour peers, against three for the Conservatives, five for the Liberal Democrats and one crossbench member, the Tories will still be the largest single party in the Upper House.

At the moment they hold 282 seats compared with Labour's 209, and there are 75 Liberal Democrats. If the Tories combine with crossbenchers (177) and non-affiliated peers (40), they can easily delay or amend legislation passed by the Commons.

Is there a problem at the moment?