For the Record is Cameron's attempt to salvage his legacy after his failure to keep Britain in the EU. He defends his track record in a number of areas before discussing the reasons for calling the referendum and dissecting the (doomed) Remain campaign.
I am biased, because I have always been pro-Cameron, so take this review with a pinch of salt. Still, I do think Cameron's work in government deserves more praise, and his decision to hold the referendum less scorn, that it gets.
Start with his successes: it is undeniable that Cameron's government propped up the economy. Indeed, the UK performed much better following the recession that almost any other country in Europe. Though it is common for detractors to argue that the economic recovery is a mirage, the record-breaking employment rate supported by exploitative contracts, and the GDP growth disguising rising inequality, the facts do not bear out this interpretation: according to the ONS, inequality indicators such as the Gini coefficient and the P90/P10 ratio (a proportion of the average income of someone at the top 10% to that of someone at the bottom 10%) are slightly down from 2010. As for jobs, the fact that so many immigrants like myself have come to work in the UK is testament to the strength of the economy (and is, ironically, almost certainly one of the factors that led to Brexit).
Cameron lists several other areas in which his government did well - the protection and even slight increase of the NHS budget, the opening of schools, foreign policy, inclusivity (under Cameron, the Tories drastically increased the number of women and minority MPs - though still significantly behind Labour), and (according to Cameron at least - I have not looked into this) establishing his government as the most energy-efficient government in British history.
But of course all this is overshadowed by Brexit. Even those who begrudgingly agree that Cameron did prop up the economy point out that Brexit is likely to undo all his work and plunge the UK into another recession. So what does he have to say about it?
First, he makes a few defensive points, which are, however, fair enough: a) people who lay the referendum squarely on this shoulders should remember that MPs voted to hold one; b) his predecessors had promised a referendum before major EU treaties, but failed to honour that promise with Lisbon; c) two very common criticisms, often made by the very same people, are actually contradictory: the first is that Cameron only held the referendum to appease his own MPs, and the second that the UK has parliamentary representation, not direct democracy, and so such monumental decisions should be left to MPs, not to citizens. But as Cameron points out, it does not make sense to argue that on one hand he should leave this matter to MPs, but on the other that he should not have worked to accommodate the elected representatives of his own party; and d) that the claim he only held the referendum to protect the Tories against UKIP is untrue, since he had mentioned a referendum in speeches way before UKIP became a threat.
More substantively, Cameron tries to lay out his own nuanced view of the EU. He believes the EU is set up to fail (which it did come close to doing with Greece - and only avoided doing so by forcing an elected PM to capitulate to its demands, thus, arguably, giving up sovereignty): the EU is a monetary union without a common fiscal policy. This makes it very hard for member states to respond to economic instability. Furthermore, the EU has open boarders internally, without having succeeded in enforcing strong outside boarders, which causes tensions, especially at times when there is a drastic increase in the number of illegal immigrants. Finally, the EU is steadily increasing its centralised powers, with little accountability; indeed, any single country's MEPs have little control over legislation, and can always be outvoted by the MEPs of the other member states.
All these points, which I believe are valid, made Cameron a Eurosceptic long before the referendum. He believes that the UK needed to redefine its relationship with the Union, and failing that, that it might be better outside it. So arguing that the referendum was only an exercise in party politics is unfair: according to Cameron things were bound to come to head anyway - and better to hold a referendum, try and renegotiate with the EU and campaign to stay in a reformed Union under his leadership, than kick the can down the road, when a referendum and Brexit might be pursued by a government actively campaigning for it.
To me this reasoning makes sense. I blame Cameron not for holding the referendum, but for running an unconvincing campaign. To his credit, he does acknowledge his mistakes: he raised high expectations for his renegotiation, failed to explain the agreement he got from the EU, and did little to combat the lies spread by the Leave campaign. To those I would add focusing too much on the downsides of leaving the EU, rather than touting the positives - the UK's leadership role in it, its ability to influence regulations rather than being forced to comply to them without having a say in them (which it will most probably have to do to trade) etc. Sadly, the "Cameron single-handedly caused Brexit" narrative is much simpler and easier to sell - and is therefore likely to be written down as fact in the coming years and decades.
Regarding style, the book is reasonably well-written, and the passages regarding Cameron's son Ivan were truly moving. I am withholding one star because the book could definitely have been shorter.