The problem with that assassination of PR is that it overlooks that there are ways of doing PR on a scale such that people do get a choice over who represents them, at least to some extent, so that this connection to the MP that is apparently so important can be preserved. Rather like the misunderstanding of how AV works, it seems that many people have a warped idea of how PR might work.
But even if not, why does it matter? The "constituency link" that is so important to some people is becoming an increasing irrelevance, as Parliament spends its time debating on global and national issues far more than on any local ones that would be relevant to MPs and their constituents. Never mind the point that the answer a vast majority of people would give in answer to "Who are you voting for?" would name a party. I'm voting UKIP or for Labour, or for the Green Party, and who is actually standing for that party in your constituency gets pushed by the wayside. There remain some who do, who have developed a like or dislike for their local MP that goes beyond the party they stand for (which perhaps explains why Lembit Opik, among others, lost his seat).
No, the issue of which party we vote for is becoming ever more relevant over the MP that we elect. Hence, incidentally, this recent clamour for TV debates, which represent a move towards presidential and party-based politics.
Under these circumstances, regardless of the practical problems of a pure PR, it certainly does represent a more accurate reflection of what people are actually voting for. And, because it can still be done in a manner that captures some level of control over the actual MPs, it can be done in a way that has the best of both worlds.
Plurality voting (largest first-choice pick) has so many flaws that even if you were insistent on preserving the consituency side you should still discard it, because the largest "first-choice" pick is, with the increasing number of parties, becoming a narrow winner among four parties. In a constituency with votes for parties of 13,000, 13,001, 12,999, 13,000, how can anyone seriously think that the person with 13,001 votes deserves to win, and represent his constituency just based on that result? It should be clear that he does not. Hence, something like AV, or some other system that grants voters the right to express not just one choice but many, and then attempts to find the candidate that is indeed preferred by most voters, rather than just winning a straight race by a nose.
FPTP does not deliver even close to what we want. As long as it persists, we will never get the politics or the politicians that the public is voting for.