Guess I was right. Blockstream's business model is to create permissioned blockchains for which they get a monthly fee:
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/
""Five major bitcoin startups – Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin and Xapo – will operate the private sidechain, allowing partner exchanges to move funds between order books without the need to transfer funds on the bitcoin blockchain."
"The startups involved will participate in the operation of the sidechain, but at the same time will be customers of Blockstream, paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee. "
They want to be the AOL of bitcoin, in the process taking away users from the open blockchain and taking away fees from miners as well as balkanizing the blockchain into walled gardens.
It now makes sense for them to be so against 0conf transactions because it makes their "only takes seconds" competitive (when the blockchain transactions are at speed of light and if the inbuilt script language is developed can be very safe) or being against spv wallets as they'd rather people use their more safer sidechain which is probably in the works or lightning and of course it makes much sense for them to oppose blocksize increase because if no space in the open chain you have no option but to pay some fee to use a walled garden.
I should think the miners are sufficiently smart to eventually realise that the fud about centralisation is no more than a smoke screen to curtail bitcoin's free capacity and replace it with a paid option and, eventually, I should think that miner's greed for fees and users will clear their mind to see that the scaled open blockchain is the best option for them, for bitcoin, and for the world.