This is the exact situation which brought us Corbyn. I personally don't like the system of choosing a leader. If you look at the Tory Party members they are generally bonkers, not representative of actual voters who support the party come election time. They would probably vote in Mogg if they had a freer hand.But that's the actual situation. This is a real puzzle to me. Here we have a situation that is literally all about internal party matters, in which only members can participate, and people keep insisting that none of this is of any interest to any one outside the party, and so we should stop it. I mean it's genuinely odd. I suppose it comes down to the weirdness of political parties in general, which are supposed to represent everyone but which are controlled by members of the club. Long term I'd like that to change, but for now, we've got some internal issues that need to be dealt with: that's not dicking around, it's facing up to the reality of the situation. Anything less is whistling past the graveyard. The candidates either don't recognise this (and so they shouldn't be leader), or realise this but are afraid to discuss their plans with the membership (in which case they shouldn't be leader), or they do have some plans and can talk about them, in which case they should be heard.
My concern is that many members are currently overwhelmed by the defeat and have effectively abdicated their responsibilities: they want to be spectators, and let daddy take care of everything. Enter Starmer.
Perhaps Labour members being a little passive is not a bad thing in this case?