I wrote elsewhere here that in my view the underlying economic grievances are key to understanding the lack of stability and widespread support that the protests had among population as seen in large attendance by middle aged people that you normally do not see at protests elsewhere. There was a core of protesters of course that was absolutist in their political demands as there are always is in any movement however the masses were primarily driven by perceived lack of responsiveness of existing political set up to long standing issues. The key, related, issues in my mind are (1) out of control property prices that make it extremely difficult to get on property ladder for young and even middle aged and (2) the fact that median incomes (and below) have stagnated since 1997 with over 100% of GDP growth going to top 1% (median pay is about what it was in 1997). These issues have been known for long time and it can be argued that the trends were in place before handover however nothing has been done to address them. People are well aware that for example Singapore has done much better job with housing issue through massive social housing program and people know that places in PRC such as Shanghai are more proactive. As to wages, immigration tends to be blamed as being used by business to depress incomes - government has a track record of fighting tooth and nail against any demands to increase wages. The political activists can get mass support primarily because of those economic raw feelings. As to what can be done within current framework I would focus on trying to at least be seen attempting solving this issues and possibly pick on some particularly onerous tycoons/monopolists. Government could also be more open in accepting economic demands as opposed to political demand to create a better channels to air issues.