Five days into 2006 and Charles Kennedy already knows that whatever is in store for his leadership this year, he is certainly not going to have an easy life.
Briefings from disgruntled MPs have left the Liberal Democrat leader on the ropes.
Whether the move to hold a leadership election can put an end to the party's crisis remains to be seen, but the signs are not good.
Much of the criticism is based on Kennedy's relaxed style, frequently described as more of a chairman than a leader.
His laid back demeanour initially marked him out as a politician the public could relate to.
That is still partly the case, but having led the Lib Dems through two general elections that approach is not as fresh or novel as it once was.
And with media savvy David Cameron now Conservative leader, the Lib Dems need fresh thinking more than ever.
To his credit, it was something that Kennedy recognised before Cameron replaced Michael Howard.
A review of Lib Dem policy is already underway, but again this has failed to satisfy critics.
Having begun a wide-ranging policy debate, there has been little sign that Kennedy is inclined to lead it in any particular direction.
That might be about to change, however, with aides promising a series of hard-hitting speeches on key issues.
And as the leadership contest gets underway, Kennedy has two important factors going in his favour.
The first is that his party is noticeably divided between two camps. While a large section of his party's grassroots remain on the left of the political spectrum - voting against any moves to privatise postal services at last autumn's conference - a growing band of MPs favours a more right-wing programme in the 'classic liberalism' mould.
Kennedy has said, with some justification, that his style is the best way of taking the party forward while avoiding splits.
And if MPs seek to shift the party to the right, it remains hard to see how radical changes could be pushed through the conference, which has real powers over policy.
The second advantage is that there is no clear replacement for Kennedy among the party's MPs.
Foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell is highly respected but unlikely to have popular appeal, while home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten is seen as a contender but lacks the charisma of a Blair or Cameron.
Simon Hughes is popular among the grassroots but notably less so among the more right-wing MPs.
Those difficulties aside, a substantial group of MPs is determined to bring the leadership issue to a head with 11 of the so-called Lib Dem 'shadow cabinet' signing a letter saying they no longer have confidence in Kennedy.
Cameron's moves to shift the Conservatives to the centre ground have left many feeling the Lib Dems could be facing a serious loss of seats at the next election if they don't get their act together.
This fear has now been coupled with a nagging feeling that the Lib Dems should have done better in May's general election and fresh claims about Kennedy's past fondness for a drink, which he confessed to seeking treatment for in a dramatic personal statement on Thursday evening.
That move prompted immediate questions about whether he had lied to journalists when previously denying any alcohol addiction.
Kennedy's decision to call a leadership contest was a smart move that will almost certainly see him retain his position for the time being.
No senior MP would gain much support from the party's grassroots, who would be casting the ballots in any contest.
But his future must remain in doubt given his lack of support among a large section of his parliamentary party.
To assess his situation, Kennedy might want to look back at the lessons from recent history.
His situation has noticeable similarities with that of John Major's administration.
Both Kennedy and Major have a low key style that involves leading by consensus rather than by force of personality.
Noticeably, both came in the wake of leaders with opposite characteristics - Paddy Ashdown and Margaret Thatcher respectively.
In Major's case, however, he was then defeated in 1997 by Tony Blair, a fresh faced leader promising decisive leadership based on centre-ground politics.
It is the same threat that Cameron now poses to Kennedy.
A second similarity between Major and Kennedy is that of a leader popular among his party's grassroots being undermined by briefing from a section of the parliamentary party.
In the end, Major - like Kennedy - was forced to tell his critics to "put up or shut up" and called a leadership election of his own.
Major's decision worked in his favour to an extent.
He called the bluff of Michael Portillo and managed to carry on as leader through to the general election.
In the same way, Kennedy appears to have called the bluff of those briefing against him.
But any leader who so obviously lacks the support of much of his own party is doomed in any event, as Major went on to prove.
Kennedy's chances of success at the next election are already significantly diminished.
As 2006 begins he now either needs to show the leadership his MPs are demanding, or opt to spend more time with his young family.
On the leadership question at least, there is no middle way.
