The Waimarino electoral boundaries for the 1922 General Election were different from 1919. Taumarunui Borough was now deemed urban, whereas previously the whole electorate was deemed rural, and consequently the Country Quota weighting fell to 23.9%. Westland electorate, which also had a high proportion of Labour-supporting timber workers, and which also went to Labour in 1922, had a weighting of 14.5%. The larger population tolerance for t he electorate lead to a slight expansion into rural areas to the north west and south. There were now 8,223 registered voters, as opposed to 7,506 in 1919.

The number of candidates offering themselves was also different. Liberal incumbent Robert William Smith, and his Labour challenger, now also faced three other candidates. Reform's candidate was David Donald McLean, a Raetihi farmer. Other candidates were George James Goldfinch, who owned sawmills in the Ohakune and Taihape areas and a joinery and furniture business, and Henry William Bucknall Littlewood, another Raetihi farmer (AJHR 1923 H 33A p14). Goldfinch was also the current Mayor of Ohakune, serving as Mayor 1914-1915, 1918-1923 and 1926-1933, while Littlewood was later Mayor of Raetihi 1929-1931.

The "N.Z. Herald" of 8/12/1922 referred to both Goldfinch and Smith as Opposition candidates and McLean as the Government or Reform candidate. The "Auckland Star" of 8/12/1922 referred to both Smith and Goldfinch as Liberal Labour candidates. Both ignored Littlewood in their election results. The "Evening Post" of 6/12/1922 (page 16) referred to Goldfinch, Smith and Littlewood as all Liberal Labour candidates. The result was a split in the anti-Labour vote.

At the election Labour increased its proportion of the vote cast to 40.9% with an increase of 527 votes, securing a winning majority of 987 for Langstone over Smith, who won only 28.4% of the vote, down from 55.7% in 1919. The intervention of Reform had given the electorate to Labour, with McLean winning 23.4%, Goldfinch 7.1% and Littlewood only 10 votes. Of the total roll Labour won 35.3%, Liberal 24.5%, Reform 20.2%, Goldfinch 6.2% and Littlewood 0.12%. The turn out was 86.2%. Goldfinch's standing as an alternative Liberal Labour candidate increased the size of the majority against Smith, but even if all his votes had gone to Smith then Langstone would have still won. The established farmers likely supported Reform, with pioneer farmers, town dwellers and timberworkers split between Langstone and Smith, and to a small extent Goldfinch.

Direct comparisons on a booth to booth basis with 1919 are difficult as there were some changes to the areas covered by booths. Of the larger booths, Labour won Horopito with 55.5% (2.1% of the total vote), Kakahi with 58.9% (3.6%), Manunui with 53% (5.9%), Matapuna with 55% (1.8%), Ohakune East with 59.7% (4.8%), Pokaka with 65.7% (1.5%), Rangataua with 50.4% (3.5%) and Raurimu with 59.4% (1.9%). Taumarunui split 41.9% to Labour, 19.6% to Liberal, 33.3% to Reform and 15.6% to Goldfinch. Ohakune went 26.1% to Labour, 32.9% to Liberal, 7.7% to Reform and 33.2% to Goldfinch, as local candidate and Mayor. Raetihi was, like nearby Ohakune, now split into two booths. Raetihi went 31.5% to Labour while Raetihi Mill went 30.2%, the two booths went 39.2% and 68% respectively to Liberal (no doubt a personal vote for Smith), 27.4% and 1.7% to Reform and 8.8% and 1.6% to Goldfinch. Owhango with 3.5% of the total vote, went 40% to Labour, 33.2% to Liberal, 15% to Reform and 3.5% to Goldfinch.

Labour also won by pluralities Booth's Mill, Erua, Hihitahi, Hukapapa, Karioi, Mangakahu, Manganoto Bush, Mangapurua Road, Manson and Clark's Siding, Murumuru, Mgamatea, Ngapuke, Okahukura, Ongarue, Waituhu, Piriaka, Pokaka, Pungapunga, Rioriaka, Tangiwai, Te Wakarae, Tunakotekote, Umumuri and Waimarino (later National Park). The absent vote went Labour by 51%, Liberal by 26.6%, Reform by 14.6% and Goldfinch by 7.7%. Geographically Labour won a plurality in all but the pastoral north and south west of the electorate.

This was a welcome electoral win for Labour as Waimarino was its most rural seat. However, neither the "Auckland Star" or the "N.Z. Herald" were able to give a campaign biography for Langstone, unlike for all other successful Labour candidates. The "Evening Post" was at least able to say that "the candidate has given many years to union work. He was an executive member of the old Shearers' Federation and has lately organised for the New Zealand Workers' Union among the timber workers of the King Country" (Evening Post 8/12/1922, page 10).

At the April 1923 Labour Party Conference (WTU MS 270, folder 345) the Waimarino electorate was linked with conservative held Waitomo, Rangitikei, Oro ua, Palmerston North and Manawatu for administrative purposes, and Michael Joseph Savage visited the area in May 1923 to assist Labour Party branches in Raetihi, Taumarunui, Ohakune, Rangataua, Manunui and Ongarue ("Maoriland Worker" 30/5,6/6 & 13/6/1923). However, Langstone was not a delegate to this Conference, with Waimarino represented by the wife of Bob Semple.

The Labour Party now had seventeen seats in the new Parliament and first met as a caucus on 6 February 1923 (WTU MS 270, 11, 0270-011). Langstone and Savage represented the Party on the Lands Committee of Parliament, with Savage also serving on the House, and Industries and Commerce Committees. The caucus meeting of 13 June 1923 also asked Langstone and Savage, with three Labour Party National Executive members to report on the Party's land policy for the 1924 Conference. However, at the Conference (WTU MS 270 - 346) discussion of the report was deferred because of the railway workers strike.

Langstone later became the only Labour member of the Agricultural, Pastoral Industries and Stock Committee and represented Labour on the Gaming Amendment Bill Committee.

John A. Lee recounts a story concerning Langstone's early days in Parliament in his "Rhetoric at the red dawn" p13 (Collins, 1965) as follows: "...two days after the opening of the 1922 Parliament, Langstone Langstone was resting on his buttocks on one of the softly cushioned armchairs in the Members' lounge. George Sykes, M.P. for Masterton (who had defeated Hogg in 1911) ... came along and found him smiling contentedly. "What are you smiling at, Langstone?" George asked him? "I'm wondering how I ever got here", Langstone replied. Two weeks later Langstone Langstone was in the same seat and still smiling when George came hurrying along again. "Hulloa , Langstone," George paused to greet him again. "Still wondering how you happened to get here? " " No, George," Langstone answered. "Yesterday I heard you speak in the Address in reply and ever since I've been wondering how you got here."

Langstone's first speech in Parliament came on 8 February 1923 when he asked whether County Councils would keep their 50% timber royalties, after the transfer of Crown forest lands to the State Forests Service under the Forests Act. The following day he gave an eulogy for Jennings and on 16th February 1923 he spoke on a confidence motion. In what was basically his maiden speech he strongly supported Labour Party policy in favour of a state bank, particularly for the benefit of mortgaged farmers. The Labour caucus of 9 July 1923 included him on their committee on the Agricultural Banks Bill, with Savage, McCombs, Parry and Fraser. From the beginning Langstone had picked the issue most likely to win farming support for Labour.

The Bank of New Zealand, which was one third owned by the government, was also an early target. Langstone criticised private directors and investors benefiting from what he thought should be a government operation, with the state becoming sole mortgagor, offering 95% mortgages. The heavy mortgage burden carried by small farmers had lead many to work in local sawmills. From his first term in Parliament Langstone supported the state issuing cheap credit for farmers, with financial backing for that credit being the general wealth of the community (see P.D. 1925, v206, p905). He also said that "were the state to own all the banks, it is reasonable to assume that by cheaper and more efficient management we would get much better results" (P.D. 1925, v 208, p344). Similarly he criticised private insurance companies, contending that a fully state-run insurance would be cheaper and more efficient.

Current levels of public debt were also of concern. Langstone believed a state bank, a monopoly of fire insurance and a full income tax, would all reduce the public debt. Citing Sir George Grey, Langstone claimed that if all government land as of 1882 had remained leasehold, there would have been no need to borrow overseas for public works, as the funding would have bee n available from the leases. However, he did not support full retrospective land nationalisation.

Langstone encouraged the development of unused Maori land, but, unlike other pakeha who wanted to take over the land for themselves, wanted Maori to have the financial resources to be able to develop their own land themselves (P.D. 1923, v200, p426-33, p839). A large portion of Taumarunui County, to the north and east of Taumarunui Borough, was still Maori land. In the 1920's the Native Land Court allowed for individualising some King Country Maori land titles, which slowed down the government's programme of buying land in Te Kuiti and Taumarunui Boroughs as allowed for under the 1919 Native Townships Amendment Act. Land within those Boroughs was on Maori lease, which was seen as an impediment to Pakeha development ("N.Z. Herald" 7/3/1923, special King Country supplement). The government was then selling the titles to pakeha previously leasing that land.

Langstone was also an early participant in winning Maori support for Labour. At the caucus meeting of 25 June 1924 Langstone wanted the Party represented at a meeting of Maori at Huntly and on 28 August 1924 he and James O'Brien, Labour M.P. for Westland, were to act with the National Executive on formulating a Maori land policy.

Later in Parliament Sir Maui Pomare was highly critical of what he called a "wooing expedition" (P.D. 1925, v 206, p358) into his Western Maori electorate by "half the (Labour) Party". Labour politicians had met with Maori in Bulls in 1924 and supported a commission into administering Maori land, along with pledging financial support for Maori agriculture from the proposed State Bank. Langstone was singled out by Pomare for publicly supporting the candidacy of Rangi Moffat, also known as Rangi Mawhete. In 1922 Mawhete had received 827 votes against Pomare, who in turn had nearly lost to Tokouru Ratana. Mawhete did better in 1925 as an official Labour candidate and was important in securing Maori support for Labour in the 1930's.'

John A. Lee (AP MS 828, Lee Papers, 11, 23, 10), contends that Langstone was involved in a racial slur against Pomare. Lee begins by describing Langstone as "a man of great natural ability. He had known little education ... (and) his lack of education was frequently betrayed by his mispronouncing, and yet Langstone had studied issues so thoroughly that no(ne) could outdistance him in Parliament. He had a good command of language and a forcible delivery and in form was a real spellbinder. A bad man to cross. He did not easily forgive. In his earlier speeches some M.P.s in the Nationalist side were inclined to belittle him, they cultivated a tittering habit when he stood on his feet. You can't allow that Langstone. The one thing you must do is make them snarl when they start to titter. Langstone took my advance too much to heart. He was speaking a few nights later and Sir Maui Pomare, Minister for Native Affairs, made a silly interjection. 'I won't take that from a buck nigger' Langstone said. Then Sir Maui and Parliament blew up. Sir Maui positively bared his teeth. Langstone made them snarl, they smothered him with abusive interjection. Langstone was now in his element, a true mob orator, he could fend for himself, whereas the titters he had met hitherto had been wounding (for mispronouncing words). When Langstone sat down Pomare was outside in the lobby prancing like a warrior. When Langstone left his place in the House Sir Maui followed him challenging him to a fist fight. Pomare used to smart for months every time he saw Langstone but the anger was over. No one any longer tittered. They listened with respect. The term 'buck nigger' did not reflect an attitude of Langstone's to the Maori. No one got along more easily with the Maori than Langstone. Fortunately it occurred in a day when parties differed more on economic issues than on the shade of a man's pelt".

An exhaustive search of the 1923 to 1925 and 1929 to 1930 Parliamentary Debates has failed to locate any direct reference to the above incident. The 1925 attack by Pomare on Labour and Langstone "wooing" his electorate would be the most likely, but there is not even an oblique reference to any insult from Langstone. However, Langstone did not serve on the Native (from 1945 the Maori) Affairs Parliamentary Committee until 1930, after Pomare's death.

A more likely interchange in the same period is also reported by Lee. "One night Langstone was speaking about control of Dairy Cooperatives. He referred to wet shareholders, the people who had shares and who supplied milk, and the dry shareholders, the ex dairy farmers who continued to hold shares as an investment only. (John Charles) Thompson M.P. for Awarua until 1925) came in drunk and Langstone talked. "What's a dry shareholder (Thompson) asked. No one even replied and Thompson when he was drunk because once started he continued interrupting. Langstone went on. Two or three times Thompson asked his question. Langstone was compelled to say something. "Am I a dry shareholder" Thompson pursued. "Not by any means" Langstone truthfully replied. He knew Thompson was not a dairy farmer. Thompson exploded. He thought Langstone was accusing him of drinking. The whips got Thompson out of the House. The press as usual paid no attention to the Hon. members hiccups. But Thompson sat out in the lobby waiting for Langstone who was innocent of any intention to hurt. Thompson chased Langstone to fight every time he was drunk for weeks. I remember Langstone sitting in his seat in Parliament when the House was not in session and Thompson arriving to knock his block off. Langstone reached into his desk and brought out a small bag of black balls (a peppermint tasting black coloured sweet) holding it towards him propitiatingly. "Here" he said, "I'll give you a black ball if you promise not to hurt me. In fact" Langstone pointed "tackle Fred Bartram (Labour M.P. for Grey Lynn to 1928), he's the smallest man in the House and I'll give you two black balls". Good natured Langstone had been reared in a tough school".

The Langstone-Lee relationship began in 1922 when both were first elected. John A Lee in "Rhetoric at the red dawn" p 12 (Collins, 1965) recalls speaking for Langstone "in the timber town at Raurimu, at the foot of the main trunk spiral ... after the meeting we were so poor and the party so poor we could not afford to pay at one of the many boarding houses. We slogged the miles back along to railway tracks to Owhango where we had a Labour friend". Langstone was renowned for walking the length and breadth of his electorate.

When Langstone lost Waimarino in 1925 Lee gave him 50 Pounds and accommodation to tide him over. When Lee lost Auckland East in 1928, and Lang stone returned to Parliament, Langstone wrote to him (AP MS 828 17/11/1928) saying that Lee lost because of the "money men" and in turn offered him money to tide him over. Lee returned to Parliament when elected for Grey Lynn in 1931, but for their first nine years they were together in Parliament for only three.

Langstone sought other forms of assistance for farmers, including state run depots for livestock, implements, stores and general merchandise. Of particular concern to politicians of all parties were returned soldiers who were pioneering what was previously Crown land, often with poor roading and overrun by weeds. Concerned with its rural vote the government set up regional Inquiry Boards to report on their problems. Langstone was also not afraid to tell settlers when he felt that some areas, and some farmers, were not suitable for farming. An example was the Mangapurua area where he believed the soil was not stable and had strong doubts about the viability of the whole settlement scheme (Bates, Arthur P. - The bridge to nowhere, 1982).

Langstone strongly supported pooling the marketing of dairy produce for export. When Reform's Dairy Produce Export Control Bill came before Parliament, he served on the Select Committee for the Bill and believed it would allow more favourable credit advances for exports, reduce handling charges and commissions, and allow for the negotiation of more favourable shipping rates. As yet there was no mention by Langstone, or any other Labour politician, of the concept of a guaranteed export price for agricultural products.

In a letter Langstone to Walter Nash sometime between mid 1923 and 30 March 1924 Langstone suggested (NA NASH 2141 - 01) "the question of fixed prices for farm products for New Zealand consumption must be considered". This was not a call for a guaranteed price, but for a fixed domestic price. The Labour caucus of 13 August 1923 had earlier agreed that the local price for butter should not be greater than the export price. Langstone later called for "some board set up for the purpose of stabilising the prices" of farm produce (P.D. 1925, v206, p369).

R.J.M. Hill in his "The quest for control, the N.Z. dairy industry and the guaranteed price 1921 - 1936 (Auckland University Thesis, 1974) notes the 1921 Labour Party Conference had sought guaranteed fixed farm prices for farmers by means of cooperatives-operatives and argues that it was not until after the 1925 election that Labour moved away from support for land nationalisation. Langstone barely mentioned land nationalisation in Parliament and from the outset supporting cheaper state credit.

Other concerns were specific electorate problems. He called for the moving of the Taumarunui railway engine shed to the south of the town to avoid smoke and grit for town dwellers, the upgrading of the Taumarunui Post Office and the use of Pokako timber to boost employment in the area. Noting the large turnover of staff at timber mills he promoted cooperatives-operative timber milling contracts, as had his predecessor Smith, and sought better policing of timber mill accommodation. He opposed day light saving as being to the detriment of rural dwellers, particularly early rising mill workers' wives. Later in 1933 he supported advancing clocks half an hour, but preferred that the working day was reduced to 6 or 7 hours. Another enthusiasm was the use of light trams for carrying people, using railway lines rather than roads, as an example the 6 miles (10 kilometres) between Raetihi and Ohakune.

In line with the near universally accepted "white New Zealand" policies of the time, he opposed immigration of large numbers of what he termed "coloured" or "half bred" people (P.D. 1923, v201, p403). He also wanted the government to be the sole importer of tea, while condemning tariffs on sewing machines and other consumer goods. He criticised the 1923 restoration of exemptions from income tax of income, which were derived from the direct use or cultivation of land. This had been imposed as a war measure in 1915, but Langstone claimed the restoration only favoured the better off mortgage-free farmer.

He also condemned territorial military training on physical, moral and financial grounds, and later said that people should be able to object to such training on other than just religious grounds. He contended that training camps exposed young men to bad behaviour and sexual immorality. At the Labour caucus of 27 June 1925 he and Alec Montieth sought a deputation to the Prime Minister and Attorney general seeking the removal of restrictions on conscientious objectors. For ten years from 10 December 1918 all objectors were deprived of the right to vote, to serve as an M.P. or local councillor, to hold government or local government employment and if overseas on that date were unable to return to New Zealand (N.Z. Gazette 14/5/1919). This restriction included future Labour MPs such as James Thorn and Paddy Webb. Webb had actually previously lost his seat over the issue.

He opposed Bible readings in schools and favoured a secular education, while confirming that he had personally read the Bible cover to cover. As a boy he had attended Band of Hope picnics, but by adulthood he was a Rationalist by conviction. The racing industry was also another specific target, including concerns for the working conditions for jockeys (his eldest brother Frederick became a jockey), the payment of fractions over dividends, exemptions from taxation and the totalisator. His general attitude to gambling was relaxed, he did not mind it as long as it wasn't to excess. Regarding alcohol he believed both the liquor and prohibition lobbyists were anti-Labour. At the time he also strongly supported proportional representation.

Another area of criticism was government administration of railways. While on the one hand supporting state enterprise as "there is nobody able to do it so well and so cheaply as the Government, and at the same time, safeguard the interests of the community " (P.D. 1925, v207 p858), he castigated what he regarded as mismanagement and criticised railway lines that did not pay their way. Echoing his views on employee control of industry during his involvement with the New Zealand Workers' Union, he pressed for the involvement of railway workers in Railways Department efficiency programmes, and dairy workers in the management of their industry.

Nature conservation and native bird life were yet other enthusiasms. He promoted making Tongariro National Park, which was within his electorate, a nat ive bird sanctuary. He also supported the need for reafforestation and condemned docking cow tails as barbaric. Generally from 1922 to 1925 he numbered amongst the more vocal and active in Parliament, supporting more state involvement in bettering the economic lot of the small 'pioneer' farmer.

The "N.Z." of 1 August 1925 (page 17) summed up his contribution by describing his "persistency", his "good platform personality" and noted that he was "one of the few Labour Parliamentarians who can expound the land question to the satisfaction of the country cocky". It also noted that he "acquired his education by self-teaching, to rise by determination and strong will to the honourable position he occupies in the movement" and "as a country member, with country experience in a practical sense, Langstone Langstone is, indeed, an acquisition to Labour in all debates on the floor of the House".

At the 1925 General Election the electoral boundaries remained as they were in 1922, with the number of voters on the roll increasing by only 6. Smith again stood for the Liberals, now calling itself National, but this time was the only candidate opposing Langstone. The two-candidate race resulted in Labour narrowly losing with 49% of the vote and Smith regaining the electorate with a majority of 140 votes. Labour increased its total vote by 8.1% over 1922, but this was not enough to counteract the transferral of the 1922 Reform and Independent vote to Smith. Of the total roll, Labour received 43.9% and Smith 45.6%, the turn-out being 89.5%.

In Taumarunui Labour won 44% of the vote, 2% up on 1922, the booth made up 15.4% of the total vote. Labour won 40.9% in Ohakune (up 14.8%), while Ohakune East went 71.4% (up 11.7%), both booths made up another 10.7% of the t otal vote. Raetihi became again one booth and Labour received 39.4% (up 7.9%) and making up another 9% of the total vote. Labour won Horopito by 61.6% (up 61.% and 2.2% of total vote), Kakahi by 54.4% (3.6% of total vote), Manunui by 63.7% (up 10.7% and 5.4% of total vote), Matapuna by 56.5% (up 1.5% and 1.8% total vote), Pokaka by 81.2% (1.6% total vote), Rangataua by 59% (up 8.6% and 3.8% of total vote) and absentee votes by 53.9% (up 8.1% and 8.3% of total vote). Smith won Ongarue by 50.5% (1.4% total vote), Owhango by 54%, but Labour increased its Owhango vote by 5.9% (3.2% total vote) and won Pakihi by 54.4% (1.5% total vote) and Raurimu by 50.5% (1.5% total vote).

Labour's percentage vote in the larger booths of Raetihi, Horopito, Manunui, Matapuna, Owhango, Pokaka, Rangataua and absentees had all increased, sometimes markedly, but dipped 4.4% in Kakahi and oddly 9.9% in Raurimu. Labour still carried a number of smaller booths as well. Informal votes were always low, being 79 in 1919, 67 in 1922 and only 36 in 1925. As well as Waimarino, Labour also lost Wellington East, Dunedin North, Napier and Westland, but narrowly held on in Lyttelton.

In early March 1926 Langstone saw an opportunity for a quick return to Parliament. The Eden electorate fell vacant with the appointment of its Reform M.P., Sir James Parr, as New Zealand's High Commissioner in London. The Labour nomination for the urban Auckland electorate, based around Mount Eden, Morningside and Kingsland, was sought by the 1922 and 1925 candidate, Rex Mason, an Auckland lawyer. However, two Auckland union officials, Tom Bloodworth and James Purtell, who had previously been unsuccessful Labour candidates in other Auckland electorates, also decided to stand.

The fourth candidate was the recently defeated M.P. for Waimarino, who had lived in the area around 10 years before. Lee says that when Langstone was voted out in 1925 he was penniless. Langstone stayed with Lee for a while after losing his seat, as he had no money to fall back on, but Lee strongly supported Mason. The Labour Party ballot for the nomination was held on 9 March 1926 and went over 80% to Mason on the first vote (Ak Star, 12/3/1926, p13). Because of a split vote, due to an unsuccessful candidate for the Ref orm nomination, Ellen Melville, standing as independent Reform, Mason narrowly won.

The only other by-election between the 1925 and 1928 General elections was in Raglan in September 1927, which was won for Labour by a local farmer, and former Wanganui Painters' Union secretary, William Lee Martin.

During and after the Eden nomination Langstone worked briefly as a railway porter in Auckland and later in 1926 worked as an auctioneer in Palmerston North. In 1928 he became an organiser for the Christchurch Labour Representation Committee, which covered all the electorates in the greater Christchurch area, before working as an organiser in the Timaru electorate, which was won by Labour's Reverend Clyde Carr in 1928. However, Langstone's sights were still set on winning back Waimarino. Rex Mason campaigned for Labour in the seat in 1926 and spoke on land deterioration, unemployment and the timber industry (WTU MS 270 folder 349).

Once out of Parliament, and Wellington, Langstone was involved in policy formulation. He had not regularly attended the Party's Annual Conferences and was not to serve on the Party's National Executive until 1933. His contribution to the report on land policy for the 1924 Conference had been for "a valuation of all privately owned land to be completed as soon as possible. Landowners to have the right to make their own valuations. The State reserving the right to purchase at such valuation, or to use as the basis for taxation" (NA NASH 2141 - 01). This would include the State deciding not to purchase the land. Previously he and Savage supported "providing for the conservation of the National Endowment, and a land tenure based on occupancy and use, which shall secure to the working farmer the full fruits of his labour and exertions", to the 21 June 1923 Labour Party caucus.

The full land policy report had been deferred because of the rail strike, and Langstone didn't attend the 1925 Conference, in a telegram expressing the need for a "new vigour and inspiration" (WTU MS 270 - 347). The Labour Party caucus meeting of 27 June 1925 asked Langstone, Savage, John A. Lee, Fraser and McCombs to report on the land question but the intervening election precluded his input. In 1926 earning a living became paramount to him and he did not attend the Party Conference. In frustration he wrote to Walter Nash on 9 December 1926 (NA NASH 2098 - 0224) stating "I do not attach a great deal of importance to my being on your Land Committee, as on a previous occasion I was never given intimation in time to permit my being present at any meetings that were held".

Labour's Land Policy Committee was appointed in April 1926 and a sub-committee met in early February 1927. Langstone attended a meeting of the Committee in Napier on 15 April 1927. Prior to the meeting he had suggested a compromise (WTU MS 270 - 329) "that all privately owned land which is subject to an existing State Mortgage shall not be sold or transferred except to the state" and called for "the establishment of Government Land and Law Offices throughout the Dominion where all sales, exchanges or transfers of land and properties must be executed at minimum costs. All private selling agencies to be abolished". He also favoured "as a means of preventing high rents in Towns, Boroughs and Cities a super tax shall be imposed on all rents and revenues from properties in excess of 10% on the Capital invested. The basis of such calculations shall be from the time such land was bought and the construction when erected, or of any addition, alterations, or improvements added thereto".

The committee considered making the transfer of land with a state loan subject to Lands Department approval. The idea being to eliminate land speculation on what had been Crown land. At the full comm ittee meeting Langstone and Walter Nash were requested to draft a new clause to cover compensation for any improvements in the land made by the tenant. This became "leases of all land to provide for payment to the lessor of full compensation for improvements". The committee recommended a State valuation of all privately owned land as a record of the current landholders interest in that land, that private land should only be sold to the State and that land owners could surrender their land on the State valuation. Even this was later deleted. The concern became properties with state loans, the State Advances office could already approve or disapprove land transfers when it held the mortgage.

Langstone had no difficulty with the withdrawal of these last gestures towards land nationalisation, which is precisely covered in Bruce Brown's "The rise of New Zealand Labour" (Wellington, Price Milburn, 1962) pages 86 to 94. From 1923 to 1927 Labour shifted from a rural policy stressing State ownership to assisting private farmers with finance and credit, with some assistance from Langstone.

Langstone made up for his lack of Conference involvement in 1927. Representing both the Raetihi and Palmerston North branches he took some part in the debate over the Party's land policy, and opposed both tariffs and a Royal Commission on the timber industry as helping only the large enterprises (WTU MS 270 - 349). He also supported the extension of State Advances Office credit to assist primary production, including loans to cooperatives-operative dairy companies to assist suppliers purchase fertiliser, equipment and stock. He also criticised a lack of Party organisation and described some Branches as languishing. Waimarino reported Branches at Owhango, Raetihi, Ta umarunui, Horopito, Ohura and Oruawai, along with Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants affiliated Branches at Taumarunui and Rangataua. There was later an Ohakune Women's Branch as well. The next Conference he attended was in 1929.

Langstone's geographic isolation in the King Country kept him from the centres of political power within the Party, and was a factor in impeding his influence on party policy. Previously giving the restaurant as their place of residence, the family lived in Para Street in Matapuna on the easterly outskirts of Taumarunui between 1922 and the 1925 election, and this was still their address at the 1928 election. Between 1928 and 1931 the family moved to Burns Street in Ohakune, and then to Horopito Road in Ohakune between 1931 and 1938. In 1931 the Borough of Ohakune had a population of 1,470. Taumarunui had 2,500.

The move from Taumarunui to Ohakune may well have been for financial reasons. In 1932 when discussing the effects of unemployment Langstone said that he had "experienced it ... and I lost the house I had put 500 Pounds into because I could not get a job" (P.D. 1932 v232, p211). The most likely period would have been after his defeat in 1925, it was certainly after the birth of his last child in 1918 as he later confirmed "I have been unemployed and when I had seven children" (P.D. 1944, v264, p454). If he was unable to meet the mortgage on his Taumarunui home he may still have been able to rent the property for a time.

After 1928 he again had a Parliamentary income enabling him to move to Ohakune, where he lived on Maori lease land until the mid 1930's. This period was a hard one for his family. Langstone late said that "because I had no job and had to earn money to furnish bread for my family, I have had to leave my home and tramp all round - indeed sometimes I have been away for six months at a time without seeing my wife or children" (P.D. 1945, v269, p103).