Activists from across the Labour Party have been gathering gloomily with one question on their minds: what next?

So far, somewhat predictably, all the conversation has been around the question: “Who next?” Who will be leader? Who will be deputy? Who won’t run, who should? Who will run who shouldn’t?” Everyone is picking a side, usually based not on the merits of the candidates themselves, but on their perceived closeness to or distance from Corbyn. Whether you love him or hate him, all thoughts on Labour’s direction still run through Jeremy.

The other conversation happening is about why Labour lost. Good. That is an essential conversation. However, as it is happening through the prism of the leadership contest it’s taking place in a factional way, both sides jumping — largely evidence free — to conclusions rather than listening to what the voters think and putting in the time to reflect.

For those members who found Corbyn’s politics attractive they need to ask themselves why they were unable to sell them to the country. For those who opposed Corbyn from the start, they need to reflect on why they were unable to convince their fellow Labour members of his unsuitability.

But leadership contests are rarely times for self-reflection. And this one is going to drag on, even while there is little sign of a proper inquest into Labour’s drubbing. Corbyn ought to step down to allow an interim leader to oversee that inquest. (Frankly, him stepping down now would be a kindness. Can you imagine week after week of this wounded man standing at the dispatch box to face a vicious, bullying Boris Johnson?) Labour needs someone who wasn’t in the Shadow Cabinet but is trusted across the party to delve deep into why they lost.

Meanwhile, the leadership candidates need to stop talking up their version of why Labour lost, because they don’t know properly either. We all know the outlines and we’ve all seen the initial polling. But the deeper work needs to be done. What they should say is that they will listen to that work and promise to act on it no matter what the outcome.

It may be to factional advantage to blame Corbyn or Brexit and these will have been factors. But they won’t be in 2024. Or at least they won’t be the same shape. Brexit will have started. We will be either in a bad deal or a no-deal scenario. The country will have either accepted or rejected that.

Labour leadership contenders need to be forward-looking and tell the party two things.

First, what will they do to tackle Labour’s internal problems? How will they change the toxic culture? How will they tackle anti-Semitism? What will they do to stop the farce of sexual harassment claims that drag on for years? How will they tackle the many technical problems that bedevilled campaigners on the doorsteps? How will they make sure that feedback from the doorsteps, that doesn’t gel with the desires of their leadership, is listened to and acted on?

Second, what is their vision for the country in 2030? How will their time as Labour leader take us closer to that vision? What will they do to install hope? What will they do to unite an increasingly fractured country?

It should be this combination of internal pragmatism and external vision that members of the Labour Party begin looking for. Not which badge someone wears, or how much they venerate one Labour leader over another.