don't you worry, we can all count on Mr Cameron to iron out social inequality, oh yah.

GCSEs were introduced in 1986! 1986!! Blair did a great many dumb things but how on earth can you blame him for this? Completely ridiculous. Results improved every year until this year - spiralled out of control under Thatcher as she devalued achievement, zoomed into the stratosphere under Major as he demonstrated his contempt for students by overseeing more hyperinflation, Blair, well, you've told us about Blair, bumped even further out of control by Brown.

Or, in your version, it was all Blair's fault. Your article could have said 'I don't like the Labour Party, I like the Conservative Party' and it would have had as much content as it has now.

The worst thing about this round of results is that students have worked hard to achieve specific criteria (because GCSE grades are criteria referenced and not norm referenced - you're writing about education policy so you obviously know what this means, yes?) and have had the goalposts moved after the event. That's a scandal.

I'm afraid our current government are far more interested in protecting the position of the wealthy than they are in investing in the future of the young. Their policies on student fees have ensured that whilst the wealthy will continue to get a good education for their offsrping, the rest of us are heavily squeezed to find the money. Top quality universities will once again become the exclusive bastions of braying hooray Henrys and Henriettas.

It's not even as if all this stifling of investment and austerity is achieving anything - our economy has been dragged back into recession and government borrowing is going up rather than down. Osbourne is clearly out of his depth. We certainly should be borrowing at a time when interest rates are very low, but to invest in public sector infrastructure, rather than to invest in tax breaks for the rich and the Tories' long-standing fondness for high levels of unemployment, or to give money to the banks, in the vain hope that somehow it will filter down to the poor.

Thatcher made great claims for the 'trickle-down' effect when she gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy back in the 80s - but studies clearly show that a) not much did trickle down, and b) it took 13 years for there to be any evidence of what little benefit there was to the poor.

The history of major recessions shows that the way out of them is to invest directly in jobs, and we're simply not doing that. If you invest money in the rich they simply keep it, and avoid paying tax by spiriting it away abroad.

Invest it in the poor and they spend it, paying their taxes, and benefitting the economy in so doing.

Additionally...

Today’s youngsters face prospects as bleak as those endured by teens who left school during the recession of the 1980s. The figures for youth unemployment make for uncomfortable reading, the gap between house prices and wages is higher than ever, the economy has become stagnant and competition for jobs has never been so fierce.

Those factors, coupled with the introduction of tuition fees of around £27,000 for a typical three-year degree, mean youngsters have their work cut out to get a start in life.

The responsibility for this lies with Prime Minister Cameron and his government. He inherited an economy recovering from global meltdown and has dragged us deep back into recession. He has thrown debt in the way of students considering higher education and now he's presiding over the first ever downturn in exam results. It's probably Blair's fault.

'Today’s youngsters face prospects as bleak as those endured by teens who left school during the recession of the 1980s.'

Yes, times are terrible for the 'lost generation' of young people leaving education now and they need all the support we can give them. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to get that from the elitist government we have now however hard they work and however resourceful and positive they are. In the 80s when my generation left school Thatcher was in power. Now Cameron's in charge and times are equally bleak. The common denominator is not the way in which GCSEs were graded under Blair, but Tory priorities. This lot cares about its dogma of 'austerity' and 'reform'. Education, opportunities for a decent future for ordinary young people and even the economy don't seem to matter. The vast majority of families value and prioritise their kids above everything else. It's shameful that our government doesn't do the same.

I have to say the editorial was very poor quality lacked research and full of bias.

There has to be a reason for the small decrease in overall success rates and that is what should be investigated. Gove says "not me gov", teachers say the standard for marking was altered after the guidance to them for marking was given. If this is true who decided it was a good idea to penalise this years pupils with such a cock-eyed policy? How can employers trust the system that is undermined yearly by the media for cheap gain. our pupils deserve better from government and the media.

I'm 19 and a full time student at college studying childcare this year I retook my GCSE English and got a D but it should be a C as in my controlled assesments I got a B and the rest C's the markers have remarked everything and put my grades down this is now going to effect my career a lot. I hope all papers get remarked fairly.