ANY alien tuning in to Thursday night's leaders debate - and by that I mean of the little, green, off-world form, before Nigel Farage has the vapours again - would have thought proceedings an entertaining sort of game show.

The Weakest Link-style podiums, splashed with relevant party colours.

The strict but fair host, the advertising breaks, audience participation, the entertaining woman who didn't understand the rules of the game, led away for interjecting too loudly.

That alien would note how the leadership debate was immortalised in Lego form - already an eye to merchandising? Do you have The Magnificent Seven in their original box? It'll be worth a fortune some day....

Roll up, roll up to the political circus.

See Ed Miliband quote Ronald Reagan, watch Nick Clegg attack his former coalition partner, gasp as Nigel Farage says something outrageous, ooh as Leanne Wood slaps him down, watch Nicola Sturgeon take on David Cameron, note Cameron's reference to his son, watch as Natalie Bennett doesn't fall apart like she did on radio.

And it was somewhat entertaining, because it was the first time it had happened. It had the benefit of novelty.

It was good to see women on that panel - the first time in such a debate. And it was good to see a Welsh leader there.

ITV's Julie Etchingham performed her role well, without the rabid attack-dog stance of some broadcasters.

But will it change the where people who tend to vote at most elections put the cross on their ballot papers?

I really do doubt it.

Most who tend to vote know what their values are, what drives them, what is important to them, what issues are closest to their hearts.

Mostly, those who tend to support one party or another thought their leader was the winner.

People who don't support a particular party tended to think there was no overall winner, though hearing from quarters such as Scotland and Wales and from parties such as the Greens who have previously not had such a platform was a good thing. It widened the debate.

I think the various opinion poll results afterwards are indicative of how politically split our society is right now.

They key thing for me is whether such debates will spur people who do not normally vote on to actually go to a polling station.

Why do large numbers of people in our society fail to vote at all?

Disillusionment is an easy and understandable answer.

But perhaps it's also because they are confused about where they should cast their vote, because they are unsure exactly where the political parties stand on many issues.

My fear is there is a widening split - between those who talk about and think about and care about what goes on in politics, and those who simply couldn't care less.

The problem is people are tired of being talked AT - and while debates have their place, they are a poor substitute for someone knocking on your door and asking you "What do you care about? What do you think about the NHS, jobs, the economy, immigration, whether our society is fair?"

How about doing the same thing via social media?

I'm sure a number of politicians are doing that, and it does need to be done.

People need to think about these things and come to their own decisions. This newspaper will not tell you how to vote, and neither will I.

But I would ask you to think about what's important to you.

Assuming someone else will vote to ensure the future of what's important to you - whatever that is - is playing social Russian Roulette.

What if enough of them don't?

* As it's the Easter weekend, I shall be doing what thousands of people across Britain do on bank holidays - so here's my message of solidarity to those of you wielding a paintbrush or sanding a piece of wood this weekend.

DIY kings and queens of Gwent, I share your pain. Happy Easter!