Probably the biggest reason that Core Dev is prepared to let the 1MB limit be constantly hit is that they think they can manage the situation. Perhaps they need to look up the word "hubris" in the dictionary.
I think they want to make sure a hard fork is already needed around the same time they are ready to launch Blockstream's LN and SC changes. This would make it easier to push the changes through. i.e. "OK, transactions recently hit the 8MB limit and we need to increase the limit today, here are some additional updates to include in the fork".
If there is no pressing need for another hard fork (because the blocksize issue was already dealt with), then the entire discussion is focused on if people want to make a drastic change, and there is no rush to do so. Combining the two might accelerate the process.
For a VC backed firm, that has limited time to demonstrate adoption or revenue, running into a wall where it takes 2 years just to convince the Bitcoin ecosystem to change for you, can be a killer.