Generally speaking, Mick Atkinson isn’t one to change his mind.

But he has been known to bow to pressure occasionally, when the weight of public opinion and political logic weigh against him.

Back in 2010, for instance, he was forced to abandon laws forcing people making online political comment during an election campaign to first reveal their name and postcode.

At the time, he devoured his humble pie with admirable relish, telling the assembled reporters he appeared before them “in humility, and chastened”, and taking full responsibility for the debacle: “It was my idea … it’s turned out to be a lousy idea!”

He is similarly willing to put his hand up for this week’s edict that twin by-elections in neighbouring constituencies should not be held concurrently. But on this occasion, he’s neither chastened nor humiliated, even though it is a similarly lousy idea.

Bob Such’s sad and untimely death has forced an electoral contest in Fisher; in next-door Davenport, Iain Evans has brought forward the retirement he flagged in June to allow his constituents to vote for a successor at the same time.

The Speaker, though, is having none of it; as if moved to remind Evans that the timing of by-election dates depends not on the prerogative of retiring MPs but on the whim of the Speaker.

And it is whimsical.

In Nat Cook, it has snared an ideal independent candidate to step into the significant breach left by Bob Such. Her only downfall, indeed, is that she is not a genuine independent.

Let us put aside for one moment the inherent irony in the Liberals complaining that Labor is “playing politics” (elections, after all, are intrinsically political events).

On ABC radio this week, Atko outlined the intellectual and moral case for his decision; it did not stack up on either score.

At first, he implied that the Electoral Commission was not equipped to handle concurrent by-elections so soon after the present local council elections had concluded, intimating that his “overall impression” from correspondence with electoral commissioner Kay Mousley was that her preference was to delay the contest in Davenport.

But then Mousley made it publicly clear her preference was quite the opposite – to hold both polls in one fell swoop. And she’d contacted Atkinson’s office to say as much.

He didn’t get the message, though; as he explained it, because his Croydon electorate office was “very busy” and he was “in and out on my bicycle”.

Perhaps he needs to explain to his loyal electorate office staff about this great (relatively) new contraption called a mobile telephone, which allows people to convey messages to their interlocutor even when they are not in their immediate proximity.

But even if he’d been briefed about the electoral commissioner’s desire to get both polls out the way at once, Atko was not for turning. There was, as he trumpeted, no significant cost saving in contemporaneous polls, and at any rate: “The decision is mine; I’m not going to change my decision, because I’ve announced my decision and taken responsibility for it.”

I’m just waiting for that chastened caveat: “It turned out to be a lousy decision.”

The real rationale, of course, is that Labor fancies its chances in Fisher, and wants a clear run at the seat. By the time the Davenport poll comes around, election fatigue may incline locals to punish the ALP for its cynicism, but in truth the party doesn’t especially rate its prospects there anyway. In Nat Cook, it has snared an ideal independent candidate to step into the significant breach left by Bob Such. Her only downfall, indeed, is that she is not a genuine independent. If she was, the Sammy D Foundation founder would probably only require ALP preferences to see her home.

On ABC radio, Atko put his best foot forward, tenuously arguing that the respective polls deserved separate consideration because “one was triggered by a death, (while) the other was triggered by a resignation”. Evans, he helpfully explained, was “leaving because his party didn’t form Government (so) he’s walking away. The people of Fisher and Davenport should deliberate separately on the merits of their particular electoral contests; they shouldn’t be mixed in together.”

Of course, the extension of that logic is that voters in a general election are unable to distinguish their own local issues from those of neighbouring (let alone father-flung) electorates. Perhaps we should simply have a series of by-elections over the course of a four-year term, in case “the merits of particular electoral contests” get “mixed in together”?

Though it does seem a tad rich for Labor types to be casting moral stones when their own party hastened the respective retirements of Mike Rann and Kevin Foley in concurrent by-elections. At the time, then-ALP state secretary Kyam Maher (now an MP) said the timing of the polls was Parliament’s prerogative but “it would probably be more effective and less costly to have them on the same day”.

Now, however, Atko, insists it’s “not the right decision for our state”. WHY it’s not the right decision, however, remains the great enigma.

“What if I call a by-election for Davenport and Mr Evans changes his mind and doesn’t resign?” the Speaker (rather desperately) hypothesised. And what if Iain doesn’t change his mind, and resigns as he has publicly stated he will?

At any rate, after a federal election in September last year, a state poll in March and a glut of council ballots still ongoing, the electorate will have had a gutful of casting their vote for the time being.

Of course, Mick Atkinson has had various electoral contests occupying his thoughts of late, and his concern for the peculiarities of local issues is consistent with his political zeal.

He is always an enthusiastic participant in the council elections in his local Charles Sturt Government area. He has, indeed, been utilizing social media to point out that an independent candidate in the Woodville West ward (who he erroneously claims is a running mate of his nemesis, Mayor Kirsten Alexander) is an inveterate hoarder. The gentleman in question is running on a platform supporting more open space while opposing unsightly development and local pollution, so the fact his front yard is a neighbourhood eyesore is somewhat ironic.

So, does the local member feel voters in neighbouring wards should not cast their vote concurrently, to better reflect the idiosyncrasies of their local contests? Of course not. And neither should the voters in Fisher and Davenport. To suggest they should vote separately because their seats have been vacated under different circumstances is to imply that voters in general elections are too dumb to appreciate the nuances of the electorates in which they vote.

Last week Isobel Redmond’s high-profile beef with Adelaide Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood prompted some to suggest she shouldn’t delve into local government electoral matters, particularly outside her own council area. But I don’t have any particular grievance with state MPs taking a vested interest in the local governance of their own electorate. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Jay Weatherill should stop criticising the Abbott Government insofar as its policies relate to South Australia; there is, inevitably, osmosis between the thin tiers of our governmental orthodoxy.

The discrepancy is that in local government elections, candidates are under no obligation to reveal their party affiliation. The Local Government Association points out councilors are not, unlike state or federal MPs, duty-bound to tow the party line; but it seems a peculiar failing that voters are not entitled to be told if a prospective representative is a paid-up member of a major (or minor) party. Especially when their local major party state representative takes such a personal vested interest in the outcome of the contest.

At any rate, after a federal election in September last year, a state poll in March and a glut of council ballots still ongoing, the electorate will have had a gutful of casting their vote for the time being.

At the very least, Mick Atkinson could have spared southern suburbs residents another four months of electioneering. But therein lies the arcane logic of the parliamentary Speaker, who so loves politics he can’t comprehend why the general public could possibly have a gutful of it.

Tom Richardson is InDaily’s political commentator and Channel Nine’s state political reporter.