You call this corrupt, I say you must be having a laugh! The definition is so wide and vague as to be meaningless!
Lets look at the claim. 60 of 61 English towns chosen were either "Tory seats" or "Tory targets" . . . yes that is true. But what does that mean? Is it unusual or unexpected? Well lets have a look shall we. The Tories won 65% of all seats in England but where are their seats and targets distributed? Where was the campaign distributed? Where are the seats that were neither Tory seats nor Tory targets?
Virtually every town in England was either a Tory seat or a Tory target!
The seats the Tories neither won nor targeted were confined pretty much to the cities. So to say that virtually every town chosen was a Tory target or Tory seat is meaningless since nearly every town in the country was a Tory target or Tory seat in the first place! That's about as meaningful as saying that every town chosen had a Tory candidate when the Tories stand in every constituency (bar the Speakers). In 2019 the Tories weren't writing off any towns. I'd be curious if you could without Googling name even a single town that was neither a Tory seat nor a Tory target?
Here you go Aimless, to help you so you don't need to Google it, here's a map of the 2019 election results. That should help narrow it down. Identify please the excluded towns that the Tories weren't targeting or didn't hold?
I'll give you another hint, the Tories colour on that map is blue and even if a constituency isn't blue doesn't mean it wasn't a target it just means they didn't win it.