Surely he is trying to sabotage his own chances.

Not sure the empty chair thing would work when there are only 2 candidates 

After his most recent less than mega result he is probably wiser concentrating on the members who get to vote rather than the general public.

I presume he is too busy kicking his bird down the stairs or whatever he does to get his thrills

It his duty to appear in these debates and answer questions, if he can't face the heat from a Journo how can he appear in a room of EU Negotiators, etc, etc. It is just naked arrogance on his part. Imagine when he is in power, his right to be entitled will manifest itxelf ten fold.

It does seem fairly pointless, given that only 100,000 odd Tory party members actually have any say in the matter, but his contempt for the general public is pretty telling.

Surely he is trying to sabotage his own chances.

Quite the opposite. He literally has to do nothing, and he wins. anything short of nothing could cost him the role. heh

I don't believe he wants to win.

You say that as if it's an internal Tory party matter and not something that concerns the whole country.

Nobody cared who won the Tory leadership contest in 2001.

Maybe not, but plenty of people have spoken about how undemocratic it is when a sitting prime minister simply hands over the reins to a replacement elected by their own party members without holding a general election.

Notably Boris, in 2007.

tory leadership elections in 2016 - May ended up unopposed so nobody to debate

SNP leadership election in 2014 - SNP irrelevant in UK parliament

 labour leadership contest in 2010 - Labour in opposition not power, so not picking a PM

labour leadership contest in 2007 - Brown was unopposed so nobody to debate

tory leadership contest in 1991 - we didn't have televised leader debates for general elections back then (Parliament was only televised in 1989).

I find it strange that parties are so reluctant to have their candidates scrutinised before they appoint them to the big job. It would have avoided the disasters of the Brown and May premierships if they had been found wanting (and therefore discarded) before they were appointed.

Um, no shit Sherlock, so Boris is now doing exactly the same thing he complained about Gordon Brown doing.

What Anna said

Labour were  not in opposition when GB resigned from being the prime minister.

LOL, that's just desperate. The 2010 Labour leadership contest (your original goalposts) was conducted whilst they were in opposition.

No, twotfeatures, my argument is that it is fundamentally undemocratic to let the prime minister of the UK be chosen by 100k party members, which is the same argument Boris himself made extremely vociferously when the opposition did it. 

This is all fairly fruitless, because even if Johnson is chosen by the Conservatives, he only has a parliamentary majority of 4 and at least a dozen Conservative MPs would vote against him on a no confidence motion.

I’m not certain whether that means he would become Leader of the Conservative Party but never become Prime Minister or whether he would become Leader of the Conservative Partyand so Prime Minister until the no confidence motion, but he would surely never actually govern.

Which is a good thing because he is an absolute weapon..

Why do you think I am hoping he wins? 

I hope he wins, this will be fun of sorts will his tenure last until January, probably not. And unless a GE is called, then another annointed PM will step up from this shite cohort. I can see why Hammond is biding his time , and not saying very much.

fook January, October is the date we need to focus on. 

Nothing will happen in October other than a lot of excuses and another extension. 

Plus PM Johnson looking sheepishly at his shoelaces.

"even if Johnson is chosen by the Conservatives, he only has a parliamentary majority of 4"

he doesnt have a majority at all. The tories have 4 with the DUP