A six-week election campaign in which I have been wholly absorbed in the politics of my constituency while standing as an independent candidate is not necessarily a good place to gain a perspective on the state of the nation and the prospects for Boris Johnson’s new government. But my experience in Beaconsfield did provide me with a picture of the public mood in part of the Thames Valley, which appears relevant to those wider issues.

Beaconsfield is Conservative heartland. The county council has been Conservative since its creation in the 19th century. Apart from the period 1906-10 when it went Liberal and 1945-50 when part of it was linked to Slough and was Labour, it has had a succession of Tory MPs. I was elected in 1997 with a 14,000 majority and it had risen to 25,000 by 2017. The Conservatism runs deep. The area has great wealth and some of the most expensive housing in the country. But it has always been noteworthy that Conservative voters can be found in numbers in every social group.

Indeed, the even split in the vote at the 2016 referendum reflects that this is not just the home of out-of-town members of the liberal metropolitan elite. There is an extensive presence of skilled workers providing services, and a substantial community of British Asians who have moved in a generation from poor immigrants to very successful businesspeople and professionals. There are also pockets of deprivation, accentuated by low levels of public funding for key services.

The desire for 'getting back control', is strong and it is hard to see how this will square with a disruptive Brexit

The response to the election and to my standing as an independent against my own party, as a critic of its Brexit policy, was revealing. I received support across the political spectrum: from Liberal Democrats, pro-remain Conservatives and some Labour voters. I also found support from many people who had previously had no affiliation or tendency to back any political party. They turned out in dozens – as volunteers – to campaign because they saw Brexit as a disaster and feared for the country’s future. But I could also see throughout the loyalty and tribalism felt for the Conservative party I was challenging.

Central to this was fear of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party he had shaped. He was truly the bogeyman of this election, his policies and attitudes deeply disliked and ridiculed by the overwhelming majority, irrespective of social status. The risk of his winning was played on relentlessly by the Conservatives as a reason for electors not to vote for me, even if they shared my views on Brexit. It was undoubtedly successful as a tactic on the doorstep.

In contrast, Johnson’s promise to “get Brexit done” carried much less traction. Apart from ardent Brexiteers, few voters I spoke to had confidence in its outcome and fewer still saw Johnson as a trustworthy leader. Indeed, I have never experienced an election where opinion on a prime minister was so cynical and dismissive. He was just the lesser of two evils.

But there was also little sense among constituents, despite my best efforts, that there was any alternative to seeing Brexit through. Some were resigned to leaving the European Union even though they believed this would be harmful for Britain. Others were just angry that it had not already happened, although it was noticeable that few would give an example of any advantage to be gained from leaving the EU. Leaving has become an end in itself.

Anger over the failure to deliver Brexit was frequently linked to anger on other matters, often local issues on planning or education. A sense of being ignored among the financially less advantaged is not confined to the Midlands and the north, even in an area of near-zero unemployment.

Johnson’s new government starts with two great advantages: expectations of it are low and he has a working majority. But the desire for a future of greater empowerment, of “taking back control”, is strong and it is hard to see how this will square with a disruptive Brexit that adversely affects living standards or diminishes UK influence in the world.

The risk of a prolonged crisis over Scotland and the future of the union in general is another factor. Some of my Brexiteer interlocutors in this campaign affected to dismiss this impact, but that seemed to me to be displacement activity. As so much of the current crisis is built around issues of identity, I doubt that the reality of a lengthy constitutional crisis that threatens to break up the country will be viewed with such equanimity if it happens.

In victory Johnson has talked about healing the rift that Brexit has caused in our country. He is right to do so, because history shows that the success of democracy is as much about creating a climate where minorities can accept majority decisions as it is the imposition of the “will of the people”. But to achieve this depends on language and tone as well as showing respect for those with whom one disagrees.

The problem is that even in his first four months in office Johnson has unleashed a tide of invective and mendacity, enough to make one question how this evil genie will ever be returned to its bottle. It is the classic problem of revolutions where the ends are always used to justify improper means. Those volunteers who came in such numbers to support me were as horrified by this as by Brexit itself and it will take a great deal to win back their trust.

• Dominic Grieve is a former attorney general and was MP for Beaconsfield from 1997 to 2019