So now we know. Nominations closed on Friday, and the first leader of the new University and College Union will almost certainly be either Sally Hunt or Roger Kline. Hunt led the Association of University Teachers into the merger that created UCU, and Kline was the top universities negotiator for the other union in the merger, Natfhe.

There is a third candidate, further education lecturer Peter Jones, but his chances, always slim, have shrunk to practically zero during the preliminary skirmishing of the past fortnight. This skirmishing has set the tone for the Sally and Roger Show, which will be touring universities non-stop for the next four months. Ballot papers go out on February 7, and must be returned by March 7.

It’s the tone you would expect from two wily and experienced trade union politicians. That’s to say, nothing is quite what it seems, and each event in the campaign will sound entirely different according to which camp tells you about it. They have each put their own interpretation on the two significant happenings of the past fortnight so effectively that it seems impossible they are describing the same events.

The first was a meeting of the recently formed UCU Left in Manchester, which some say is controlled by the Socialist Workers party.

Talk to Hunt’s friends and you will find that “the Socialist Workers party has endorsed Roger”. They are keen that you google the SWP paper Socialist Worker, where you can read an interview with Kline under a strapline that says, “Socialist Worker is supporting his candidacy”.

The Kline people will tell you that the meeting endorsed their man by 79 votes to eight. For reasons they cannot fathom, they say, Hunt was not there, and the eight votes were for Peter Jones. The meeting has probably done for Jones’s candidature, for without the UCU Left it is hard to see where his support will come from.

The Hunt people say that she did not go to the meeting because she wants to be leader of the whole union, not a faction within it. “This could end up with people feeling excluded because they are not part of one camp or another,” says Hunt. To Kline’s supporters, it’s a question of meeting active members and setting out your stall.

The other event was a meeting in London of university branches to draw the lessons from the summer pay dispute. The plan of the organisers was for neither of the two candidates to speak. Kline supporters believe that this was a ruse to avoid embarrassment for Hunt, whose tactics as lead negotiator in the dispute have come in for criticism, and to silence Kline. “It is very odd to stop the two key university negotiators from speaking,” says a Kline supporter. The Hunt camp points out that there was a detailed report from another official, and says they wanted the meeting to be a cool appraisal of industrial tactics rather than a sort of election hustings.

But the hundred or so delegates demanded to hear from them both. A motion demanding that the “key officials… who were involved in the pay dispute” should “give an oral report” was carried. So both candidates made very short contributions. Kline’s criticisms of the tactics were brief and muted. He said the strategy had been insufficiently thought through and insufficiently discussed. Some delegates complained that members’ views were not sufficiently taken into account. One delegate, from Keele University, was cheered for telling the national officials: “It’s true that you did consult us a lot but you didn’t take any notice.” Some harshly worded motions were carried.

Both candidates seem to have drawn the same message from the dispute and this meeting. Kline says: “Many members found it humiliating to find out the dispute was over from the radio or their managers. Ensuring that those members who authorise industrial action meet to consider whether to call off the action is the only way to avoid what happened last time.” Hunt says: “What came out of the meeting for me is that you have to have confident two-way communication with members. We were all uncomfortable about how the national negotiators told people we had reached an agreement. General secretaries have to make a call, and I made a call.”

So who looks stronger as they reach the starting line? Kline is on the offensive, and will benefit from the perception that Hunt mishandled the pay dispute. Hunt defends with a practised and subtle hand, and will benefit from the perception that Kline has not been around education long enough to understand it. Both have the will to win in spades, not just because they want the job, but also because they do not want the other to have it. Their mutual dislike began during the merger negotiations, and is growing. They have both promised no personal attacks, and are making heroic, if not always successful, efforts to keep the pledge.

Hunt sounds confident. “It is quite humbling, the range and number of people who sent in nominations. It’s made me realise how many friends I have in the union.” She started as frontrunner, and probably still is, as Kline acknowledges: “It is true I am the challenger and probably true that Sally Hunt is the frontrunner. It would be surprising if that wasn’t the case. After all, Hunt has had much greater opportunity to directly mail members and use the media.”

Both have sensitive antennae for the troublesome issues, like the academic boycott of Israel. Kline says: “I abhor anti-semitism and have suffered from it, but do not believe that opposition to Israeli policy in Palestine can be equated with being anti-semitic. I am not in favour of gesture politics. I therefore do not agree that it is currently possible to demonstrate that an academic boycott of Israel can be shown to be an effective way of furthering the human rights of Palestinians. I therefore do not support one.”

Hunt says: “The boycott was an example of how a union can become a staging ground for political issues with extremes on both sides. If we were asked to do it again, I would put it in front of the entire membership. We need to unite around the industrial and educational issues we have in common.”

Since Kline received the support of UCU Left, and Hunt disdained even to ask for it, it is tempting to see this as a left versus right election. But, in fact, as is increasingly common in all forms of politics, their views are not that different. On some issues, Kline sounds rather more left wing; on others Hunt does.

No one can predict who will win, but certainly the first general secretary of UCU will be a sophisticated political operator. Which is probably a good thing.