The block size will be raised, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.
And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.
If you want to be helpful, please organize a list of objections to raising the block size limit and responses to those objections.
I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
I'll soon be writing up a plan for how we can safely raise the block size limit.
RE: central planning:
No central planning is why I would like to eliminate the hard, upper blocksize limit entirely, and let the network decide "how big is too big."
RE: "the plan" : The plan from the beginning was to support huge blocks. The 1MB hard limit was always a temporary denial-of-service prevention measure.