Although, to be honest, a quick poke around Wokingham on Google Maps wouldn't make me guess it was the least-deprived constituency in the whole UK, or even particularly far above the top 25%, so perhaps the rankings mean less than I would have thought.
Can someone explain why the UK is honestly so hideous in terms of housing? The houses look shoddily built, are far too close together, and seem mostly attached to each other. I'm assuming some of this has to be due to the shockingly high number of council estates everywhere, but I've never lived in the UK. Not to mention the embarrassingly low average salaries to the point where $100k seems to be higher than even a doctor's income somehow.
Back to the point at hand, it seems that there is a pretty interesting difference in dynamic at hand here between the US and the UK. The UK has the bottom falling out for Labour akin to the Democrats hemorrhaging support across the Midwest and in White Working Class locales nationwide. Based off the table attached, however, it is clear that Tories somehow still enjoy massive support across the board in the wealthiest constituencies as well while LibDems seem to be second to them as opposed to Labour in certain areas.
It's honestly sort of funny seeing that the Democrats easily made up for their losses with the growing and prosperous suburban areas across the country while Labour could not make such gains, at least at a similar scale. Of the 10 wealthiest places in the country (according to Bloomberg, which doesn't include certain areas in the Northeast properly that also would have voted Biden), every single one except Highland Park, TX voted for Biden, and he even flipped Cherry Hills Village, CO. Something like this doesn't seem possible in the UK at all given the concentration of wealth in Southern England around London, with the wealth outside of this area being rural/exurban rather than properly urban or suburban. You have the odd spots like Cheshire south of Manchester or the Oxbridge areas maybe, but other than that I really can't think of any other wealthy suburban areas in the country, whereas every decently sized US metro has at least one suburban constituency/district.
Tories in the UK seem absolutely dominant in such areas within London somehow even after realignment, which would be like if Republicans consistently held the NJ-7s, IL-6s, and CA-45s of the country as Democrats lost the MI-5s, OH-13s, and IL-17s, but even had places like NY-10 or NY-12 that are considered safely Democrat here but boast several billionaires. It seems that the UK is just too poor compared to the US, less educated, and less diverse, to the point where this sort of suburban educated wealth based shift is not properly possible. That isn't even getting into the massive age gap in voting patterns, which doesn't affect Democrats to the extent it does Labour, who need to paint a better image as the working class party (a lost cause unless they become anti-immigration or go down other unsavory social policy paths, imo) or accelerate trends faster and capture Tory strongholds in the wealthy suburbs/exurbs. They certainly can't afford to lose the Hartlepools of the nation if they go with the former and need to win places like Kensington and even the outer areas like Esher and Walton or Epsom and Ewell for the latter strategy to capture a majority.
