Local MPs do serve a purpose though and I think its important in talking about representation not to forget this.
Yes you might be represented by an individual in a party you don't like however you have a named individual for your area who is away of localised issues and how they affect local people.
PR takes away the connection from particular areas.
One of the current criticisms of politicians is that they are out of touch with the electorate and have no connection with 'normal people'. I do think this is a little unfair on the MPs who do spend a lot of time within their constituencies trying to sort out smaller problems that no one else would deal with or properly understand. Not all politicians do it, and the cabinet and shadow cabinet tend to be the worst offenders for obvious reasons due to constraints on their time. (There is a case to be made for a named second representative on a ticket to help MPs who have certain roles within government)
A local MP helped out a friend of mine when she had visa issues for her husband. Without that type of representation she would have been screwed and had no one to turn to.
Also one of the criticisms of the current coalition is the fact that the Lib Dems didn't stick to their manifesto promises when working with the Conservatives. The problem with PR is this is more likely to happen on a regular basis with compromises being reached and it being very difficult for the public to really know what they are voting for.
FPTP usually produces a clear winner and clear vision. It makes for strong leadership internationally and a stable government at home which is good economically. This parliament has been the exception to the rule and the next parliament has the potential to be a minority government again being an exception to the rule.
I do like this. I have been a swing voter and I firmly believe that its not good for a country for a leader and government to serve more than two terms as I think it makes the potential for corruption and complacency to be much higher. PR governments tend to change little over long periods of time, which means there is never a way of getting rid of politicians you don't like. (Again this is the strength of constituency based politics to a point. I know a lot of people will argue about their constituency firmly being Lab/Con etc with no danger of it ever changing, but Martin Bell v Neil Hamilton in Tatton is a very good example of how this can be effective even in the most staunch constituencies).
PR also gives a legitimate and stronger voice to extremes within society that otherwise would be moderated by the FPTP system. The thought of a BNP representative in parliament leaves me cold. And with PR there would be the potential for an expansion of this type of party/candidate.
FPTP is NOT perfect. But I don't think any system is any better. And that for me is the big thing. Unless there is a system that offers a significant advantage over the one we have, then I don't think its worth switching and instead I think we should look for ways to improve representation within the one we have via other means.