I know this a Golf forum so it obvious we will mainly all favour the Golf. But I've got to say, I really don't think you can call the Leon Cupra cheap. Both are £30k hatchbacks build using almost identical parts. If you look at the interior, I'd say it's easily on par with the GTI. The switches all have chrome surrounds . The Alcantara looks great. The spec is as good if not better than the Golf.
This one looks fantastic value for £24k. I'd certainly also consider the ST as looks better than the Golf estate.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201901204121830?year-from=2018&make=SEAT&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%20New&onesearchad=New&advertising-location=at_cars&aggregatedTrim=Cupra%20290&model=LEON&postcode=s37bh&sort=sponsored&radius=1500&page=1
It's 'cheaper', not 'cheap'. It's built to a cost, that cost is cheaper than a Golf build cost.
Examples off the top of my head where in that car I can see it's built cheaper than a Golf. 1) Cupholders that have no retractable/adjustable levers that keep a cup in place nor have a retractable cover. 2) Door bins that aren't totally felt lined. 3) No adjustable boot floor 4) No rubber liners in the cubby holes 5) Cheaper plastics throughout 6) smaller screen 7) Last generation LED lights. 
No leather steering wheel 9) No door for the phone holder cubby. 9) Only three DCC settings, 10) Last generation ACC with no controls on the steering wheel. 11) Higher emission levels. Just to name but a few after a quick glance.
Small things maybe, but if you were to go through that SEAT and list it all, it would amount to a long list and add up.
It's there that matters to some people, no all, but to some. When I sit in the golf it's a superior feeling cabin, all the small things add up, so to me it's worth the extra money.
I don't see that car as fantastic value, I see it as a 6mth old £24k Seat, my immediate reaction would be what £25k would get me from VW.
The car is the link:
Flat bottomed perforated leather steering wheel with white stitching and CUPRA logo
Let's be honest, we could say it has things the Golf doesn't get as standard for similar money - DCC, 19s, better active display, gloss black mirrors and I'm sure they are other things.
We're all driving Golfs but it doesn't mean the Cupra isn't still a good car and may offer better value for money.
We appear to be going round in circles here...
The Seat is a "cheaper" car (than the Golf), not a "cheap" car. The Seat is built to a cost, and that cost is cheaper than a Golf. That's not really up for debate, that's a fact publicised by the VAG group. The steering wheel may be leather on paper, but look at it, does it look like leather, it's clearly a much cheaper leather/material, it looks (and no doubt feels) cheaper because it's built to a cheaper cost.
Value for money is subjective. What you may class as VFM, is not another person's opinion. I don't see the Seat as value for money, I see it as an inferior product to the Golf in many ways. That's not to say I'm right, or you are right, it's to say VFM is subjective.
But when the lines get blurred and people (not you I might add) start arguing subjective opinions as facts, the argument becomes a nonsense.
A Golf GTI PP is a "better" car than Cupra,and that's nothing to do with brand snobbery, it's to do with cold hard facts of build costs, material costs, and trim. That's not to say a Cupra isn't a good car, it just simply isn't comparable like for like. Different products, built to different costs, aimed at different audiences (budgets).
