The concept of the “15-minute city” is a vision of a neighbourhood in which its residents can access all the services and amenities they need within a 15-minute walk or cycle. In Scotland the idea is more often talked about using the term “20-minute neighbourhood.”

It’s not exactly a new idea – my gran used to regularly bang on about life how it once was; the life before big supermarkets and mass production, where she got bread from the baker, meat from the butcher, flowers from the florist, a good blether with her GP, and so on without hardly leaving the little market square she grew up in.

New or not, active plans to (re)introduce the concept to town planning have really surfaced over the last decade. From Paris, to Melbourne, to Shanghai, the idea has been embraced by cities across the globe, including the UK and Scotland.

Why are town planners and politicians talking about these things? Put simply, to make life greener, safer, easier, healthier, and better for everyone. To reduce dependence on cars. To make society more equal.

Some of us are already lucky. I technically live in a 15-minute neighbourhood. I walk less than a minute to a pharmacy, 10 minutes to a supermarket, 20 to my GP, 30 to get to the centre of town in Glasgow (not a need commonly associated with 15-minute cities, but a bonus for me, nonetheless). I have a car, but I hardly ever use it for any of the above because, well, I don’t have to. It is easy enough not to.

But that is also a form of privilege. I chose to live here because of these reasons. The fact I have this choice, however, is something not everyone has. There are areas in Glasgow, where people have less – sometimes none of these things – within a 15-minute walking distance.

So, why are people so opposed to the idea that would make life easier for everyone? At the core of the conspiracy theories against the concept is the belief that it is part of a masterplan by the global elite to bring down the world and make us live under an authoritarian regime; 15-minute cities, instead of being places of more opportunity, are said to be created to divide people into neighbourhoods which they are then never allowed to leave. Some have gone as far as to compare it to the movie Hunger Games or – even worse and distasteful – to the ghettos implemented by the Nazis.

Known alt-right speakers have all spoken against the commonly associated ideas of the 15-minute city. On her YouTube channel, Katie Hopkins, for example, proclaimed: “Very soon, you will only have 15 minutes of freedom in the UK."

Now, in the build-up to and during last week’s Tory party conference, believers of these claims of impending authoritarian doom gained a new powerful ally – the UK Government.

In his speech, Mark Harper, the UK Government's Transport Secretary, said: “What is sinister and what we shouldn't tolerate is the idea that local councils can decide how often you go to the shops, and that they ration who uses the road and when, and they police it all with CCTV.”

Nothing in life and this world is ever 100% certain. However, it's undeniable that these fears – because that's all they are at this stage – are less tied to evidence, and more to extreme paranoia about a highly unlikely outcome that so far has happened nowhere in the UK, or the cities that have implemented the concept across the world.

Even those making the claims or supporting them struggle to back themselves up with actual evidence. Nowhere in Mr Harper’s speech was there a mention of which councils have “road rationed” or stopped people from going to shops.

Last week, Andrew Bowie, MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, doubled down on his colleague’s claims, but was unable to name any examples of councils “dictating” residents’ freedom, despite continued questioning.

However, I want to talk less about whether or not the 15-minute city conspiracy is true, and more about the dangers of politicians using something as dangerous as conspiracy theories to legitimise their decision-making or to boost their image.

It is a tactic I have come to observe far too often. It seems that people looking for power will use even the most unlikely of theories in times of need. Three weeks ago, Russell Brand declared that the rape and sexual assault allegations against him and the subsequent coverage about them, were a “coordinated attack” from mainstream media outlets. In politics, we all still see the impacts of Donald Trump’s decisions to foster conspiracy theories when it comes to election rigging and American society as a whole – that there was a vendetta against him and his followers.

Now it is the UK Government. And for what? For personal gain. A general election is looming and, like so many other things discussed during the Tory conference, there is power in siding with a certain strand of voters who feel their voices aren’t heard.

There is so much irony in all this. One only has to look at the statements Rishi Sunak made recently when talking to The Sun about 15-minute cities, during which he criticised the idea and councils exploring it, by saying: “Politicians always want to make short-term decisions”, ignoring that opposing that change seems more short-term thinking, than supporting it does.

Mr Sunak says the ideas are part of a “relentless attack on motorists” who “depend on their cars to get to work, take their kids to school, do their shopping, see the doctor” – all the things the 15-minute city concept aims to bring closer to people to erase that need to drive.

Now, during the conference, the Tories talk about “long-term decisions for a brighter future.” Yet, there is nothing long-term about the decision to support the wild conspiracy claims – quite the opposite.

Long-term thinking would be a holistic approach to things: to review and take responsibility for the environment that people find themselves living in, which, in many ways, is down to policies and decisions made by the Conservative party over the last decade. Long-term thinking would be to offer alternative solutions to address the problems that the 15-minute concept aims to address. What long-term is not, is opposing something for the sake of gaining the votes from a small minority of, sometimes very loud, voices.

In this polarised society, maybe we can’t ever stop divisions forming. But what we can do is view these attempts for what they are: desperate, shallow, and dangerous.

Serving these voices purely to gain votes will make divisions within society bigger and fuels the far right. There is literally no win to it for anyone, apart from a few more ticks for the Tories in the ballot box.