Hello, Chrissy, and welcome.
I can see some practical objections to your suggestion.
Firstly, how could all the nations of the world with their diverse customs and laws set about electing a government which would meet all their differing needs and aspirations?
Even if we could sort out the agenda how do we set about selecting the executive? and ensure that it governs equably? and that we can remove it if it doesn't? Points alluded to in the first post.
And so on.
Your other ("direct democracy") suggestion: "[maybe] it would be better if us the public could vote for any big decisions via a green and red button as in yes or no completely by passing any needs for the government."
Numerous objections to that. One is that there will be technical matters which "the public" is not competent to judge and it may be swayed by the best popular argument rather than the most expert one. Another is that decisions may be made from passion rather than sober consideration (e.g. dog kills baby, kill all dogs). And thirdly, but at least most importantly, how does a system based on plebiscite protect minorities?
Now, this: "I think that the problem first lies with the house of parliament, this needs to be revamped with a futuristic clear transparent domed roof and a clear transparent new government with new thinking to replace our hundreds of years old thinking and new laws, legislation to replace the old ones as they clearly aren’t working for the people.".
Well, I'm a conservative (note, not a Conservative) so don't agree with the new broom approach, but I understand exactly the youthful frustration (and idealism) which makes it appealing.
Good luck with your studies.