On Tuesday, Opposition Leader Matthew Guy used the legal cover of State Parliament to air a rumour that has been circulating for weeks.

Daniel Andrews had just stepped off a plane from a trade mission in the US into the eye of an political storm. He looked dreadful, like a man who hadn't slept properly for days.

And now here was Guy suggesting United Firefighters Union state secretary Peter Marshall was holding the Premier to ransom with an incriminating recording or text message.

The rumour is probably nonsense. But it does highlight the big unanswered question in all of this.

Why?

Why did Andrews, who was for months in lock-step with Emergency Services Minister Jane Garrett, suddenly reverse his position to back the UFU's "outrageous" demands.

Why would Andrews risk incurring the wrath of thousands of volunteers in politically vulnerable rural and outer metropolitan electorates?

Why pick a fight with the CFA, such that Andrews might yet have to sack its entire board and the chief executive that he himself appointed (Lucinda Nolan)?

Why create a headache for Bill Shorten smack in the middle of an election campaign by adding fuel to claims Labor is beholden to militant unions?

Why defy the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission by backing an agreement it has ruled breaches anti-discrimination laws?

And why risk creating a public image of disunity and chaos at a time when he is in other ways politically ascendant, with an impressive list of major projects and a popular social agenda.

To many, Andrews' position has been difficult to fathom. But another, less titillating, explanation is that Andrews simply misjudged the politics.

After all, industrial deals with police, public servants, nurses and paramedics have passed with barely a whimper in recent months. Even the stoush between the Rail, Tram and Bus Union and Metro, explosive though it was at the time, is now history.

So why is it different this time?

If you take the Premier at face value, the dispute between the CFA and the UFU has simply dragged on for too long. Negotiations started more than three years ago, in March 2013.

If only the dispute were about money, Andrews could make it go away without too much political pain. But the sticking points have more to do with control.

The UFU's demands are seen as a direct assault on the proud history of volunteering, with memories of disasters like Black Saturday still so fresh.

The situation is now so febrile, so riven with emotion, it is difficult to unpack the facts. It hasn't helped that the latest version of the agreement is not publicly available, allowing the misinformation to fester.

Broadly, there are two big sticking points and a litany of smaller ones. First, there is a clause requiring that seven paid staff must be dispatched to a fire incident before operations can begin. This has led to claims volunteers will be left standing around watching buildings burn while they wait for the professionals to arrive.

As a Treasury analysis of the deal provided to Fairfax Media makes clear, there is no requirement that the dispatched firefighters must have arrived. But more importantly, the clause would apply only to so-called integrated stations, not volunteer-only stations.

Treasury notes this might lead to some delays in response times, particularly where there are multiple incidents in one area. But the impact would be relatively small: out of 1209 CFA stations across Victoria, only 34 (3 per cent) are "integrated".

Second, there are claims the deal would give the union powers to "veto" even relatively minor CFA operational decisions. The agreement certainly requires the CFA and the UFU to "consult and agree".

If an agreement cannot be reached a dispute resolution process is supposed to kick-in. How this would work in practice is unclear and there are valid concerns this clause would be cumbersome to the point of being unworkable.

In an overarching sense, the agreement tries to provide reassurance that the role of volunteers will not be diminished with a clause promising that "nothing in this agreement shall prevent volunteers in the CFA from providing the services normally provided".

Andrews has not backed down. He has not blinked. Far from it, he has given Garrett until the end of the week to sort the mess out, with some capacity for tweaking to tackle the concerns of volunteers and the CFA.

Surely there must be some middle ground, with further compromise needed from both sides. If an agreement is not reached within the next couple of days Andrews will be forced to resort to plan b: sack the CFA board, sack Lucinda Nolan, and go back to the drawing board, almost certainly with a new Emergency Services Minister in the chair.

Josh Gordon is The Age's state political editor.