Labour peers quitting. A series of whistleblowers accusing the party of failing to tackle antisemitism. A leadership attacking those speaking out. An ugly war of words between its most senior figures and the ongoing torment of an official racism investigation into the party. Even in the recent history of the bitter divisions that have dogged Labour, the past week has filled many staffers, MPs and peers with new levels of despair.

The fallout from the BBC’s Panorama investigation into Labour’s handling of antisemitism began even before the programme aired, with three peers quitting the previous day – led by former party general secretary David Triesman. In the hours before it was broadcast, senior Labour sources made clear that they had complained to the BBC that it was biased and misrepresentative. The battle lines were drawn. They would only become more entrenched.

Yet there was still shock within the party when the revelations were broadcast. Whistleblowers broke cover to describe how they had felt undermined, saying there had been interference from senior Labour figures over the handling of some cases. The mental health of some was affected. The revelations, some of which were first made in the Observer earlier this year, were serious.

The Observer view: Labour leadership is complicit in antisemitism Read more

The dilemma for those in despair is what to do next. Last week some peers even discussed resigning the whip en masse. “The problem is, staying doesn’t work and leaving doesn’t work,” said one senior peer. “To be honest, people are just at a loss as to what to do.”

In the absence of any sense of a change of direction from the leadership, those pushing for a shake-up are focusing on three clear practical demands. The first two are structural and straightforward – the establishment of an independent complaints procedure for antisemitism and the automatic suspension of members guilty of antisemitism. Both issues are likely to be fought for at Labour’s conference in September.

The third appears technical, but is potentially the most difficult for the leadership. With the party’s handling of antisemitism now under investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), a series of figures – including deputy leader Tom Watson – are demanding that Labour’s ruling national executive committee be handed the party’s official submission.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Deputy leader of the Labour party, Tom Watson, leaves Labour HQ after the NEC meeting about anti-semitism on 9 July. Photograph: Luke Dray/Getty Images

Seeing the submission, they believe, will make it impossible for the party to withhold any information or risk being exposed for doing so. The EHRC inquiry is also seen as the process most likely to dislodge one or more of Corbyn’s advisers, seen as crucial to his leadership.

Senior figures who time their interventions carefully are among those making strong demands. Former leader Neil Kinnock told the Observer: “This is a democratic socialist party and, to us and many others, antisemitism is poisonous. It must be rooted out. There are no excuses for failing to do that, or for attacking those who truthfully identify the sickness, or for denying full information to the national executive and, therefore, the membership. The great majority who detest and oppose antisemitism are appalled by the delay and evasion which have allowed the minority of bigots to stain our party for far too long. Resolute and relentless action is vital.”

John Cryer, chair of the parliamentary Labour party, said: “It is difficult to see why the ruling body of the Labour party which has responsibility for internal processes and discipline, as well as for suspensions and exclusion, cannot see any documents it wants to.” The party’s high command is responding by pushing back even harder at the BBC.

A source said Labour was demanding that the Panorama programme be removed from BBC iPlayer until “basic facts are corrected”. They said the party’s position had been represented on screen for only five minutes and one second. “The BBC knows that Panorama seriously messed up and clearly broke basic journalistic standards, so now executives are scrabbling around to try to cover their backs.”

Corbyn added yesterday that there were “many, many inaccuracies in the programme” and that the party already dealt with antisemitism. “We investigate every case that comes up,” he said. “It’s less than 0.1% of our membership that have ever been involved in any accusation.”

Whatever the party’s protestations, the issue does seem to be cutting through with voters and causing concern among anti-racist campaigners. According to YouGov polling for the group Hope Not Hate, a third of voters now think Labour is an antisemitic party, including 15% of Labour voters, while 45% said they did not know if Labour was antisemitic or not.

Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate said: “We already knew that Labour has a serious issue to tackle. We know because victims of anti-Jewish racism have said so, repeatedly. Members have been abused online, and left fearful of attending party meetings. Their complaints haven’t been acted on quickly enough, and sometimes not at all. What we know now is that voters can see this problem too, and they want Labour to do more to tackle it. The EHRC’s investigation is likely to impose change on the party, but in the meantime, the leadership should start listening to people like the Jewish Labour Movement and bringing forward substantial organisational and cultural change.”

Could this all end in a mass walkout? Meta Ramsay, a Labour peer with serious concerns, rules nothing out. “I, like many others in the Labour party, feel great anger and anguish at the current terrible mess, and everyone is actively considering the best way forward. No one should think that taking time to consider all aspects of various courses of action means that nothing is/will be done. To paraphrase Hugh Gaitskell, we will fight and fight again to save the party we love.”

A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC stands by its journalism and we completely reject any accusations of bias or dishonesty. The investigation was not pre-determined, it was driven by the evidence. The outcome shows the serious questions facing the Labour party and its leadership on this issue. The programme adhered to the BBC’s editorial guidelines, including contacting the Labour party in advance of the broadcast for a full right of reply.”