Your editorial (11 November) calling for safeguards against sleaze to be strengthened heightens the case for parliament to establish an effective, non-partisan means of systematically holding to account any prime minister for personal breaches of the ministerial code, as well as in instances of gross personal misconduct or incompetence. The recent report by Lord Evans’s committee on standards in public life avoids this pivotal question, and so have the some 500 backbenchers and more than 700 sitting peers forming our parliament. Yet this matter is becoming ever more crucial for adequately safeguarding the public interest as UK politics becomes ever more populist and presidential. Should it not be examined urgently by parliament’s constitution committee under its remit to keep the operation of our constitution under review? Notwithstanding the political sensitivities involved, the growing chargesheet against Boris Johnson surely provides more than enough grounds for such an inquiry. Steve Elton Mary Tavy, Devon • The tide has undoubtedly turned for Boris Johnson and his government as they become deluged with sleaze, or should we say corruption, allegations. But your editorial (12 November) is absolutely right to point out that the critical factor in shaping our nation’s future will be the British economy over the next two years. The amount and value of cash in people’s pockets will invariably prove a more decisive factor at election time than the politics of sleaze and Brexit lies that we are enduring at the moment. If the chancellor gets the economy right, he may yet inspire some mistaken confidence in another Conservative government. If he doesn’t, the Tories are likely to be out of power and Rishi Sunak will not succeed Johnson as party leader. The stakes are high, but never underestimate the economy. David Walker Dunsfold, Surrey • As you note, there is a range of areas in public life that need better regulation if potentially corrupt practices are not to flourish. Unsurprisingly, Boris Johnson plans to do nothing about any of them. There may be a price for inaction. The extent of sinecures and political placemen in the 1820s led to pressure for democratic parliamentary reform. It was resisted until, in 1831, Britain came close to revolution. Only at this point was it decided that perhaps the 1832 Great Reform Act was a better way forward. If that’s what it takes to get Johnson to act… Keith Flett Tottenham, London • Perhaps one reform would be to publish parliamentarians’ tax returns, as then many surplus members of the House of Lords would rush to retire rather than reveal their intrinsic conflicts of interest (To rid Britain of corruption, start by reforming the House of Lords, 11 November). Plus, this might put off some chancers wishing to stand in Westminster elections. Furthermore, it’s high time we got rid of non-domiciled tax status for British and Commonwealth citizens living here who are eligible to vote. Does any other advanced democracy allow their wealthiest citizens this bizarre privilege? David Nowell New Barnet, London • The prime minister says that the UK is not remotely a corrupt country (Boris Johnson says the UK is not ‘remotely a corrupt country’. Is it?, 11 November). Clearly he is working hard to address this issue. Richard Walker West Malvern, Worcestershire • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.