Is Prime Minister David Cameron too cosy with newspapers who embarrass him over his dad's tax avoidance?
David Cameron is under fire on two fronts, for being too soft in reform of the press, and - by that same press - for being economical with the truth of whether he benefits from his late dad Ian's tax avoidance schemes.
I wonder if he sees the funny side in being duffed up by newspapers he is accused of being too cosy with. Hmmm.
One charge against him is that he dodged answering whether he will benefit in future from his late father's tax-avoiding prowess, in saying that he doesn't currently benefit.
But the truth is that it would be quite extraordinary if he did not reap benefits one day. And that would be so whether or not complicated onshore or offshore trusts still exist for the future benefit of Cameron's mother, siblings and himself.
His family is very wealthy, made wealthier by the investing and "tax-planning" acumen of Cameron senior. So unless Cameron's mum decides one day to wager the lot on the 2.45 at Haydock Park, Cameron and his siblings will inherit a tidy sum.
There is no escaping his father's stockbroking past.
One question is whether the prime minister should be embarrassed by this, given his stated public position that the well-heeled should not engage in complicated ruses to minimise or eliminate the tax they pay in Britain.
Another - which many of you have raised with me - is whether he should give away some or all of any inherited wealth deemed to be the fruits of tax avoidance.
It boils down to whether we should see Cameron as simply a winner in the lottery of life, who should be allowed to enjoy the dividends of having a money-making dad - or whether he should be held accountable for paternal conduct that his public utterances and policies would suggest he finds reprehensible.
What do you think?
Meanwhile Cameron is being accused by hacking victims of reneging on his promises to them, to provide greater protection to weak and impecunious targets of newspaper investigations.
These are serious charges. And they are well founded.
The prime minister did promise a second Leveson-style public enquiry, to examine in more detail the nature of past hacking offences and the often insidious relationship between journalists and the police.
There is no sign of that enquiry.
Second, he promised low-cost arbitration for those who feel traduced, battered, seriously misrepresented by newspapers - and said there would be a big stick to bash the media to provide such cheap adjudication, in making them liable to much bigger costs when disputes go to court.
Again, that promise has not been honoured.
In both cases, hacking victims hope that the prime minister can be cajoled and shamed into honouring those pledges.
As the prime minister wakes today to newspapers doing their central job of holding the powerful to account - that's him, by the way - I wonder if he feels more-or-less inclined to give more hope to the less powerful that there will be proper redress when the media gets it wrong.