At the 1938 General Election the boundaries of Waimarino were altered in line with population changes since the 1926 Census. Between 1926 and 1936 there had been a significant population decline in rural Waimarino and Rangitikei Counties, while that of neighbouring Katieke County had barely increased. The exhaustion of timber in the area, along with marginal agricultural land becoming increasingly uneconomic to farm, were the main factors in the population decline. The population drift to the towns had already been noted in the 1920's.

The National-held Oroua electorate in the Manawatu was dissolved and other electorate boundaries in the middle of the North Island moved south. Waimarino lost the area to the east of Mounts Tongariro, Ngauruhoe and Ruapehu to the Rotorua electorate and took Labour-friendly Taihape from the Rangitikei electorate, which was to be narrowly lost by Labour in the 1938 General Election. Taihape was still a timber milling area and was also a railway centre serving the surrounding sheep farming area. The Country Quota for Waimarino reduced from 24.2% to 21.2% because of the addition of urban Taihape Borough. These electoral boundaries also remained for the 1943 election, with a further drop of 569 in the number on the roll between 1938 and 1943.

This time Langstone faced only Boles, now standing for the new National Party which had been formed in 1936. In the election Langstone again carried all the polling booths with over 100 voters, some overwhelmingly. He won 64.3% of the total vote, and 59.8% of the total roll. The turn-out was 93%. He carried Kakahi by 78.78%, Manunui by 76.8%, Matapuna by 66%, Matiere by 71.75%, Ohakune by 74.85%, Ohakune Junction by 76.6%, Okura by 57.86%, Ongarue Public School by 70.9%, Owhango by 66%, Raetihi by 60.1%, Rangataua by 76%, Raurimu by 61.76%, Taihape by 61.8%, Taumarunui's Parish Hall by 62.25% and absent votes by 63.5%. There were only 65 informal votes and his majority was 2940 votes, the best-ever Labour vote in the electorate's history. Nationally Labour won re-election with 55.8% of the votes cast, a never to be repeated level of popular support for Labour.

During the lead up to the 1938 Election Langstone was targeted by the opposition National Party (WTU MS 1096) as one likely to say things potentially embarrassing to the Labour government. A reference in the "Dominion" (27/5/1937) welcoming the better division of wealth within New Zealand since Labour came to power was matched with the "Evening Post" (8/10/1937) when Langstone called for the full possession of the public credit. Even more controversial was his "if there is anything that is music to my ears it is the squeal and groans of the wealthy when they have to pay out some of their money in taxes" (Christhchurch Star Sun 8/6/1938). Earlier they had focused on his "when the Labour Party gets into power, we'll clip the wings of the Press and show it up as the miserable reptilian thing that it is" (King Country Chronicle 21/11/1935).

What further riled the National Party was when fending off comments about John A. Lee's recently published "Socialism in New Zealand", Langstone responded that "all this talk about 'isms" is all moonshine, whether it be socialism, nationalism, capitalism, or bolshevism, or any other 'ism'. The people of this country want cold, concrete facts and not theories. This talk about socialism is all newspaper and National talk" (Waikato Times 28/9/1938 and Te Awamutu Courier 28/9/1938). The National Party was at the time trying to brand Labour as extreme "socialist".

While acting Native Affairs Minister Langstone had helped allay fears by Maori that Labour wanted another Maori land grab for its land development programmes. He was also able to achieve consensus from the bipartisan Native Affairs committee for each of his Native Purposes Bills. However, his Maori land policies were not radically different from those of his conservative predecessors, the difference was in the amount of money Labour was prepared to spend in this area. More significant changes for Maori came from Labour's general health, education, social welfare and employment policies for both Maori and Pakeha.

Langstone's 1939 Small Farms Amendment Bill was intended to help encourage the unemployed on to the land. However, it met stiff opposition from National M.P.s who preferred the unemployed be offered freehold rather than leasehold land. On the other hand his 1939 Land Laws Amendment Bill to tidy up tenancy administration faced little opposition. The 1940 Small Farms Amendment Bill, to acquire land for discharged soldiers, again faced National opposition, particularly over its compulsory purchase provisions and preference for leasehold or "state tenantry".

In his "John A. Lee diaries, 1936 - 1940" Lee describes the increasing conflict in the late 1930's between the Labour government and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Leslie Lefeaux, over reducing government expenditure. Lee also describes Langstone threatening resignation, as much over Walter Nash's supposed dithering, as his supposed conservative financial policies. For 22 November 1938 Lee claims Langstone had walked out of Cabinet, but that Savage persuaded him to not resign by promising to keep using Reserve Bank funds rather than overseas loans.

At the time New Zealand was in the middle of a foreign exchange crisis, with Nash needing to go to London in 1939 to arrange a humiliating refinancing of loans. This event was still being referred to in the 1950's by a past and future Labour cabinet minister, Fred Hackett, as caused by "international financial gangsters" (P.D., 1956, Vol 308, p349). Hackett cited this as a prime reason for Labour's longtime opposition to participation in the International Monetary Fund. As an agricultural economy New Zealand needed to import capital, with suspicion of foreign financiers an abiding political issue.

The need for funds to maintain government spending on its social welfare programme led to the introduction of exchange controls. An import selection policy was also given effect from 8 December 1938. Lee also claimed Langstone threatened resignation over raising interest rates in 1939, but was bought off with a trip to Geneva for a conference of the International Labour Organisation (I.L.O.). These supposed resignation threats were perhaps inevitable given the strong personalities and vital issues involved.

In April 1939 Langstone left New Zealand for Sydney, from where he travelled on the "Mariposa" to California. While in the United States he looked at forestry schemes and the use of forest products, and then travelled to Switzerland via Britain and Germany. The communist "People's Voice" opposed his visit to Germany to look at housing schemes because "Labour cannot fraternise with the hangmen of Labour" (14/7/1939). He also visited Canada and Sweden to look at reafforestation and timber handling. He also met some white South Africans, and noted they could not understand New Zealand's equal treatment of Maori.

At the June 1939 Geneva Conference Langstone was honoured by being appointed a vice-president representing the government group. Representation to the I.L.O. was by three parties from each country: government, employers and employee organisations. On a draft resolution that the question of a general reduction of working hours throughout the world should be postponed, the vote in favour was 90 to 2. The two dissenters were Jim Roberts from the New Zealand Federation of Labour and Langstone. This was favourably reported back in New Zealand in the radical "Tomorrow" magazine of 19 July 1939, and more matter of fact in for example the "Evening Post" of 13 July 1939. Langstone returned to New Zealand just before the outbreak of war.

He told the Labour Party "Standard" (21/9/1939) that he was convinced the German people didn't want a war, and wanted British friendship, but that Hitler's entry into Poland showed he was serious. New Zealand entered the Second World War on 4 September 1939, but to Langstone the ideological war was still on. In a letter to B. Beckerleg of 22 October 1939 Langstone continued to write about "international finance gangsters". At the same time, however, he was content to publicly speak in favour of the Reserve Bank Amendment Bill and equated current government policies with his goals of widening purchasing power.

He also issued a 32 page pamphlet, reproduced from articles he had written for the Labour Party "Standard", entitled "The New Zealand Labour government's achievements, problems and the future, by Hon. F. Langstone, Minister of Lands" (Wellington, Labour Book Room) in late 1939. Foreworded by Savage, Langstone was very supportive of government policy, especially the guaranteed price.

At this time Lee wrote his infamous "Psycho-pathology in politics", a thinly veiled personal attack on an ailing Savage. This was published in "Tomorrow" on 6 December 1939 and Langstone's response was to join others in recommending that Lee be allowed to resign as Under-secretary, rather than be dismissed because of his article. Lee refused to resign and was dismissed by Nash. By now Lee was antagonistic towards Langstone, and most of his Labour colleagues.

Lee's diary entry for 20 December 1939 claimed Langstone wanted to reduce income to 7 Shillings a day and favoured conscription if voluntary enlistment didn't provide enough reinforcements. On the other hand W.B. Sutch in "Quest for security" claims that Langstone was one of those opposing peacetime conscription, along with other Cabinet colleagues. Langstone publicly supported 100% conscription of wealth when pressed on the issue at a hostile combined Auckland Labour Representation Committee and Auckland Trades Council meeting ("Dominion", 20/12/1939, p12). The following day he addressed the Otahuhu railway workshop employees, who even passed a motion supporting the Vichy French extermination of their Communist Party and hoping that New Zealand did likewise ("Dominion", 21/12/1939).

Lee linked what he claimed to be Langstone's views on conscription with what he regarded was another sell-out when Labour's official newspaper, the "Standard", repudiated nationalising the Bank of New Zealand. Lee was expelled from the Labour Party at its March 1940 Conference, with Langstone voting in favour of his expulsion.

Savage died on 27 March 1940 and Peter Fraser became Prime Minister. Langstone and Bill Parry, Minister for Internal Affairs, saw to the details of the monument to Savage at Orakei and Langstone expressed his "terrible loss" (P.D. 1940, v257, p107) on Savage's death. From 30 April 1940 Langstone rose to number 10 in Cabinet and took on the additional responsibilities of Minister of External Affairs, Native Affairs, the Cook Islands and the Native Trust department. He had previously had acting responsibility for Native Affairs and the Native Trust Department.

The External Affairs portfolio at the time didn't have its own Ministry, and involved the administration of Western Samoa and the Tokelaus. Langstone's reports to Parliament as Minister concentrated on the poor state of the copra trade, and the welfare of cattle in Western Samoa. He lost responsibility for Discharged Soldiers' Settlement, but on defence matters maintained his belief in the importance of air defence for New Zealand.

The need to increase agricultural production for the war effort continued to make the Lands portfolio a busy one. In the 1940 Budget Langstone was allocated 350,000 Pounds for land clearing and improvement, 425,000 Pounds for irrigation in Canterbury and Otago, 550,000 Pounds for small farm development, 1,000,000 Pounds for Maori land settlement, 400,000 Pounds for land settlement and 500,000 Pounds for state forests. 75% of the finance came from loans, with Nash commenting about not needing to print the money. Lee had believed, or more hoped, Langstone would walk out of Cabinet on the issue of financing the war. Instead Langstone publicly supported the government's war finance policy, which was a mixture of increased taxation, loans, and in 1940, 27 million Pounds of Reserve Bank credit.

Of Langstone's sons, his eldest John (Jack) Lionel and his youngest Frederick, respectively a carpenter and a fireman, went to serve overseas in late 1940 or early 1941. Fellow Ministers Fred Jones, Tim Armstrong and Bob Semple also provided sons for the war ("N.Z. Listener", 26/7/1940, pge 2). Jack was in the Third Echelon and from 1941 was held in a prisoner of war camp in Italy ( NA NASH 2249 - 0110). Gordon Langstone, his next son, a hairdresser, served overseas in 1945.

Lee's diary entry for 13 June 1940 approvingly notes Langstone joining in the opposition within the Labour Party to the creation of a War Cabinet. This was to have equal representation from both National and Labour, and be responsible for all decisions relating to war matters. In fact Langstone formally resigned on the day of its formation.

In a letter dated 17 July 1940 Peter Fraser replied as follows. "I am in receipt of your letter of last evening and I very sincerely express my regrets at its contents. I appreciate the sincerity of your opinions and feelings and fully understand and enter into your forebodings as to the results of the formation of a war cabinet. At this stage however, I cannot accept your resignation because I believe it would not be in the best interest of the country or of the Party to which we belong if I did so. The Government will be weakened if your resignation is accepted as you have been one of its ablest members and administrators, at this hour of the country's needs your relinquishing of a position in Cabinet would be a National loss and a blow to myself as Prime Minister and to the Government for which you have worked so strenuously. I would therefore, most sincerely request you to reconsider the matter of your resignation, at any rate I would beg of you to give the new arrangement a fair trial for a reasonable period after which your position could probably be reviewed. In any case I must ask you to defer action until we have an opportunity of discussing the whole question with cabinet, the National Executive, and Caucus. With kindest regards...".

Lee later implied in his diaries that the resignation was also linked to Lee's expulsion from the Party, but Langstone had already firmly distanced himself from Lee and his actions. Beckerleg, a Lee supporter, in a letter of 22 August 1940, urged Langstone to resign from Labour and join Lee. Langstone didn't reply, and discontinued the intermittent correspondence he had been having with Beckerleg. During this time Langstone's public role in Parliament was business as usual, without a whiff of crisis. Langstone withdrew his resignation after Fraser's soothing, but shrewd, response.

Langstone issued another pamphlet in 1940 entitled "Forestry in New Zealand" (Wellington, Government Printer), which was a reprint from the relevant section of the 1940 Official Yearbook. Langstone remained with Lands and Native Affairs into 1941, but in the middle of the year he and Gordon Coates, a former Prime Minister and a member of the War Cabinet, went on a mission to Washington, D.C..

Suggestions of a Minister to Washington dated from at least 15 June 1940 (NA NASH 2545). On 5 May 1941, before he left for the Middle East, Fraser asked Langstone to perform three specific duties: to conduct trade negotiations for dairy produce and meat, sort out shipping difficulties and make preliminary arrangements for the Legation in Washington, the United States capital. On 6 May 1941 Fraser further asked Langstone to remain in Washington until Fraser's return from Egypt and London via America, when he would finalise the appointment of Minister to Washington. Langstone and Coates arrived in Washington, D.C. on 24 May 1941 in the middle of America's Lend Lease mobilisation for the Allies. While in Washington Fraser further invited Langstone to represent New Zealand at the International Labour Organisation conference in New York. Nash later described him to the British ambassador as the "Ministerial representative in Washington" (NA NASH 2249 - 0110, Nash to Ambassador 9/8/1941). Langstone's Ministerial portfolios were administered by Cabinet colleagues and his Waimarino electorate was held for him under the Overseas Representatives Act, which was passed in February 1942.

Langstone later confirmed to the press that the notion of a resident Minister in Washington had been discussed by Cabinet in 1940, with the decision left to Fraser in his capacity as Prime Minister. When Fraser approached Langstone around August 1940, a month after Langstone's resignation threat over the War Cabinet, Langstone had suggested Nash as resident Minister. Fraser rejected this and said that it would have to be either Langstone or Dan Sullivan, Minister of Supply, and that Sullivan could not be spared. The United States approved an exchange of diplomats on 23 December 1940, but it wasn't until February 1941 that Fraser formally asked Langstone to prepare to go to Washington.

In April 1942 Langstone was appointed High Commissioner to Ottawa, Canada. The "N.Z. National Review" (15 May 1942, p59) quoted the Sawmillers' Federation's congratulations and referred to him as "the best Minister of Forestry there has been since that office was created (in 1921)". They further said that "no previous holder of the office has been so hard-working, painstaking and exacting in obtaining an accurate knowledge and true perspective of the many and intricate problems associated with forestry and the timber industry" (ibid). Whilst in Ottawa Langstone came to the aid of New Zealand seafarers who were held up in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and prevented by currency regulations from accessing their funds. Both Bill Jordan and Walter Nash were to offer similar assistance later in 1942 (Ted Thompson, 29/9/1997).

In fact Langstone had been given three choices. Nash and Fraser discussed the High Commission in Australia as well as Canada, as well as the third option of Langstone returning to his old portfolios in Cabinet (NA NASH 345 - 0447 Nash to Fraser 30/3/1942). Langstone was also still conciliatory saying he didn't bear a "grudge", had "no hatred or jealousy" and respected the "very great ability of our Prime Minister" (NA NASH 345 Langstone to Nash 21/2/1942). However, he did tell Fraser he had been asked three times to accept the position of Minister to Washington, had advised his Waimarino constituents on the proposed appointment and that he wasn't available to be their candidate, and asked why the position had not been finalised when Fraser returned to London via Washington.

Margaret Thorn, whose husband James was High Commissioner to Ottawa 1947 to 1950, acknowledges Langstone's astuteness in setting up the Ottawa residency and office. However, she also considered Langstone and his wife "very limited socially. They had brought up a big family and it was fearsome odds to face up to. I know, and I could talk music and art and skate over thin ice, but in retrospect I felt terribly sorry for Mrs Langstone. Langstone had a shocking temper and it was at an official dinner that he emptied his table napkin onto his plate and just announced 'Me and Mum are going home'" (Thorn, Margaret - \ldblquote Stick out keep left\rdblquote , Auckland, Auckland University Press, 1997, p 107).

Langstone resigned his office as of 13 October 1942, and was quoted in the press saying he had resigned because of differences with Prime Minister Fraser, and that he would return to New Zealand later that month. He claimed that definite arrangements had been made for him to be appointed Minister to Washington and that Fraser had appointed Walter Nash instead, without explanation. When he had asked Fraser for an explanation in Ottawa, on 5 September 1942, Fraser claimed the availability of the post depended on Nash being able to go to Washington. Langstone disagreed with Fraser's insistence that the job was meant for Nash, without discussion, and resigned as High Commissioner. He also gave notice of his resignation as a Minister. Langstone added that he resented being treated like a "schoolboy".\par \tab Nash quoted Langstone as saying "I strongly resent any form of false pretence, double-crossing or untrue statements, or by being treated like a school boy, even by a Prime Minister, particularly while I am a member of Parliament and a Minister of the Crown" (NA NASH 345 - 0447, Nash to Fraser 15/10/1942). Nash told Fraser that the public would be against any diplomat who criticised his own country while overseas. Fraser replied that "I proposed subject to Cabinet approval to offer (Langstone) after the conclusion of his trade mission the post of Minister in Washington and that intention was Langstonely discussed with Mr Langstone" (NA NASH 345 - 0447, Fraser to Nash 15/10/1942). Then Fraser had decided to send a War Cabinet member, and that Langstone had not objected. It was only later that he learned of Langstone's resentment, and he immediately told him he regretted any misconstruing and offered him a High Commissionership.

The first draft of the telegram informing Langstone of Nash's appointment varied significantly in tone from that actually sent. On 27 November 1941 Fraser drafted "I feel quite sure that you will fully understand and agree with this" (that a War Cabinet person is needed), but "before doing so I have thought that you should be the first to know of our decision .. we warmly appreciate the good work that you have done in the United States and I need not say how much we will welcome your return to the Dominion, as soon as this is convenient to you, and your resumption of your portfolios. Kindest regards - Mrs Langstone well?". However, the final telegram of 1 December 1941 had nothing about needing a War Cabinet person, but instead refers to someone with the "closest touch with .. policy, strategy, decisions and activities". Then referred to Nash's "intimate knowledge of and association with the diplomatic and strategic problems of the Pacific and the world situation generally". Fraser also toned down his estimation of Langstone's contribution to "your work is very highly appreciated .. (and has) .. given .. much satisfaction. We will be pleased to welcome you back among us, Kind Regards" (NA NASH 2545 - 0458 27/11/1941 and 1/12/1941).

Fraser's later public comment was that Langstone was personally disappointed and should have put aside his feelings in a time of national emergency, a viewpoint echoed by the press as exampled by the "N.Z. National Review\rdblquote (15 October 1942, p13 and 15 December 1942, p14 and p15). Fraser publicly confirmed he had proposed to offer the position of Minister to Washington to Langstone, subject to Cabinet approval, after the conclusion of the trade mission and the I.L.O. Conference in New York in late 1941. However, the rapid deterioration of the Pacific War required a member of the War Cabinet, thoroughly conversant with current policy, specifically Walter Nash. Nash was appointed on 19 November 1941 according to M.P. Lissington in "New Zealand and the United States 1840 - 1944" (Wellington, Government Printer, 1972) p29. Lissington also says both Langstone and the British were under the impression that Langstone was to be the appointment. There was also a brief suggestion that Coates may have been the Minister to Washington (NA NASH 1728, folder 3, Wanganui Chronicle 2/1/42).

Fraser publicly claimed that Langstone had not objected at the time, but Langstone insisted he should have been consulted and not presented with a "bolt from the blue". Fraser asked Langstone to remain in Washington to be at hand to sign the United Nations Declaration in New York in January 1942, and wait for Nash to replace him . On 7 December 1941 the Japanese attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbour in Hawaii, bringing the United States officially into the Second World War. After Nash arrived in Washington, in late January 1942, Langstone had expressed his resentment to Nash over the matter and Fraser suggested a High Commission post. This was deferred by the need to send Nash to a Pacific War Council meeting in London. Langstone agreed to be appointed acting Minister while Nash was in London, but when the venue for the Council was changed to Washington Nash immediately became Minister to Washington. Langstone then accepted the High Commission post.

Langstone later said to the press that he had two reasons for accepting Ottawa. The first was to avoid a scene with Fraser if he had immediately returned to New Zealand, and secondly to prove he was worthy of a diplomatic post. Back in New Zealand some political opponents had also questioned his suitability. Later in Parliament Langstone said "a number of people thought I was, possibly, inferior ... if that is so I had no business to be in this House or to be a member of the Cabinet ... the Prime Minister makes only excuses to me, he does not give reasons" (P.D. 1943, v263, p7).

Malcolm Templeton in "An eye, an ear and a voice ..." (Wellington, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 1993) confirms that Langstone expected to be made Minister to Washington, and had waited in the United States of America for the call. He further confirms that Nash's selection was a cruel blow to Langstone. However, he also claims that Langstone threatened to embarrass the government and refused to return. In fact to avoid embarrassing the government Langstone agreed to remain.

Some also sought a by election in Waimarino because of the prolonged absence of its M.P.. In Parliament Langstone confirmed that "naturally I told my constituents in Waimarino that it would be necessary for them to find another candidate ... I accepted the position on the 8th May (1942) and on the 19th of the same month the Prime Minister offered me three choices - the position for a temporary period, or for the duration of the war, or for the customary three years. I accepted it for three years" (P.D. 1943, v262, p578). However, Fraser was unwilling to hold a by election, probably fearing an electoral intervention by John A. Lee's Democratic Labour Party. The "Waikato Times" (22/4/1942) claimed the appointment as High Commissioner was a shock to many, that Langstone was almost now forgotten and that held fears of him being appointed to Washington. The "Dominion" (28/5/1942) expressed concern over continued representation for his electorate in Parliament, on issues such as roads and bridges. The Waimarino L.R.C. was also getting restless as it asked Langstone to support a no confidence motion on the upcoming budget (NA NASH 345 - 0447 Langstone to Nash 21/2/1942). This Langstone rejected as a "stunt" on Lee's part and that the L.R.C. shouldn't be taken, illustrating how distant he was from Lee. He also told the L.R.C. that he wouldn't be a candidate at the next election and they should find another.

Fraser visited President Roosevelt in Washington and then Langstone in Canada. At a stormy meeting on Saturday evening 5 September 1942 at Fraser's private suite in Ottawa Langstone asked about the "double cross" and when he did not get a satisfactory answer from Fraser resigned as High Commissioner as of 7 September 1942. The resignation was accepted on 13 October and Langstone initially agreed to remain in Ottawa until a successor arrived. When told this would be around three months, Langstone replied by saying he would catch a ship for New Zealand on 28 October 1942.

On his return to New Zealand in early December 1942 Langstone confirmed to the press that he would resign as Minister in the near future, saying if he could not serve as High Commissioner then he couldn't remain in Cabinet. He also confirmed that it was not being denied the post of Minister to Washington, it was the lack of consultation and the method employed by Fraser and he continued to use the phrase "double cross" on many occasions.

The "N.Z. National Review" (15 January 1943, p63) quoted the Sawmillers' Federation as being "genuinely sorry" that he had resigned, as they "found in him the most sincere, hard-working and painstaking Minister in charge of Forestry that it has been our fortune to confer and cooperate-operate with". However, they had also described him as "not an impressive figure" (N.Z. National Review\rdblquote , 15 October 1942, p13) and "not a suitable representative for such an important mission in the U.S.A." (N.Z. National Review", 15 December 1942, p14).

His resignation formally took effect from 21 December 1942. He had been a Cabinet Minister for just over 7 years. He no longer had an official Cabinet residence in Wellington and bought a house in Auckland in 1943. His modest house at 801 Dominion Road in Balmoral was his residence for the rest of his life, and was for his second wife.

Langstone's anger at his treatment by Fraser also lead to a re kindled relationship with the Lees. In letters to Mollie Lee of 6 January and March 1943 (AP Lee Papers 2,11), he described the Labour caucus as "servile" and Fraser as both a "bounder" and a "Ramsey McDonald", after the British Labour leader who had broken with Labour and gone into coalition with the conservatives. Langstone was later sorry to see Lee lose his electorate Grey Lynn to the official Labour candidate, Fred Hackett, at the 1943 General Election.

The bitter personal conflict was discussed by Caucus, who supported Fraser's actions. Some newspapers believed that what support Langstone had in caucus and at conference had now been alienated by his actions ("Southland Times" 18/11/1942).

Langstone then addressed his constituents on the matter contending that he was a Left Winger, an original advocate of a guaranteed price for dairy products, favoured price stabilisation, supported more generous prices for farm products, had been offered the position of Administrator in Western Samoa when he offered his resignation in 1940, objected to the Government's financial policies and opposed Fraser in caucus ("Waikato Times" 12/1/1943). In response the communist "In Print" (20/1/1943) declared "Langstone No Left Winger, stirs up race hatred, political pettiness of Taumarunui". To them his claim to be Left Wing was based on "unsocialist" theories about credit and his substitution of "currency juggling for class struggle". His racism was in his statement preferring a New Zealand born diplomat, such as himself, to the foreign born Nash. The "N.Z. Herald" (12/1/1943) described the speech as "full of personalities" and "petty spikes", also noting Langstone's New Zealand versus non-New Zealand born distinction.

In March 1943 the Waimarino Labour Representation Committee reaffirmed its confidence in Langstone. Its motion claimed that the "Commissionership was an appeasement after the understanding that Mr Langstone should be Minister in Washington was overthrown in a manner bespeaking lack of Langstoneness, confidence and straight forwardness .. (the) .. action of Mr Fraser (was) tantamount to no confidence in the member .. (the matter should) .. go before a committee .. (at the) .. annual conference" and that differences over banking, currency and credit were behind it. ("Dominion" 3/3/1943). The 1943 conference, however, found no evidence in Langstone's contentions that he had been badly treated, and supported the caucus decision 400 to 3 ("Dominion" 27/4/1943).

Returning to Parliament in mid 1943 Langstone was again a back bencher and was allocated to his old committees of Lands, Native Affairs and Agricultural, Pastoral. He was also allocated to the Public Petitions M - Z committee until 1946. From 7 July 1943 his former portfolios of Lands and Commissioner of State Forests went to Jim Barclay, who also became Minister of Agriculture, while Native Affairs went to Rex Mason and External Affairs and Island Territories to Fraser. Tourism and Publicity was not decided upon until October 1943. After the 1943 election these responsibilities were again reallocated. Langstone had already lost responsibility for Lands for Settlements, Scenery Preservation and Valuation in May 1942 and for the Native Trust Department in December 1942. Nevertheless, Langstone was given the title of "Honourable" because of his past cabinet service.

During the Parliamentary session leading up to the 1943 General Election Langstone began to again voice his long publicly suppressed views on currency reform, promoting "taking over of the banking institutions and the utilisation of the national credit" (P.D. 1943, v262, p 177). He criticised his own government's financial policies, called for a greater conscription of wealth and industry and again promoted the nationalisation of the Bank of New Zealand. He also expressed concern about the post-war world, particularly over potential surplus food supplies and feared a return to an international currency union based on the gold standard. He also criticised some decisions of former Cabinet colleagues, particularly over the alienation of reserve land and public access to rivers.

However, he also supported government forestry policies as providing a good source for post-war employment and supported the 1943 Servicemen's Settlement and Land Sales Bill. He similarly supported the 1943 Lend Lease Bill, but did not participate in any other divisions. However, during a secret session of Parliament on 20 May 1943 only he and John A. Lee opposed maintaining New Zealand troops in the Middle East while the Japanese threat grew closer. The Australians on the other hand brought back their troops to better defend Australia. Langstone also preferred the Canadian policy of industrialisation for the war effort, rather than sending so many men overseas as soldiers.

Langstone became concerned with the plight of conscientious objectors within New Zealand. He alerted Acting Prime Minister Walter Nash to four defaulters who were on a bread and water diet at Rangipo Prison, which was within his electorate. They had been placed on this diet after refusing to work in protest at their appeals not being heard again. Rex Mason, as Minister responsible, rejected Langstone's immediate concerns, but soon after established tribunals to hear again conscience appeals. Langstone and Bill Anderton, Labour M.P. for Eden, also visited five defaulters in Mount Eden Prison, who were on hunger strike. However, although Langstone was regarded by the men as the more sympathetic of the two, his urging that they be hospitalised was ignored by Nash (Grant, David "Out in the cold", Auckland, Methuen, 1986, p211).

Nevertheless, despite his newly found independence, at the 1943 General Election Langstone remained the official Labour candidate for Waimarino. Neither of his two opponents lived in the electorate. A Mr R.O. Montgomerie represented National, while a Mr D. Perrett represented the small pro-monetary reform Independent Political Movement.

Langstone's majority was cut to 1404, with a 9% swing away from Labour. However, National only picked up just over 5% of this, with the remainder going to Perrett. The booth figures are not entirely comparable with 1938, even though the electoral boundaries remained the same, as 976 voters cast their votes separately as Members of the Armed Forces, including 337 in the Middle East, 301 elsewhere in New Zealand and 264 in the Pacific. This partially explains the swings against Labour of 22.9% at Kakahi, 9.3% at Manunui, 21% at Matapuna (although there was also a change of booths for this area), 16.45% at Matiere, 14.9% at Ohakune, 12.7% at Ohakune Junction, 6.39% at Ohura, 20.6% at Ongarue School, 18.12% at Owhango, 13.99% at Raetihi, 8.57% at Rangataua, 6.31% at Raurimu, 4.1% at Taihape and 4.32% in absent votes.\par \tab On the other hand Langstone won 64.44% of the Members of Armed Forces votes. This suggests he had lesser support amongst those voters remaining behind, including farmers, older voters, and women. Informal votes rose to only 102 and the voter turn out was 92.34%. Nevertheless, the electorate was continuing to lose population, particularly timber workers and small farmers who were the backbone of Langstone's electoral support.

Perrett's 381 votes were also seen as indicating public support for further monetary reform. Later Langstone claimed that Real Democracy, Social Credit and Communist supporters would see no need for a separate existence when the Bank of New Zealand was nationalised, and would join Labour ensuring it of a permanent majority. ("N.Z. Commerce" 15/9/1945, p3). John A. Lee had decided not to put up a Democratic Soldier Labour candidate in Waimarino, who could have cut Langstone's majority still further. Across New Zealand Labour's vote fell to 47.3%, with Democratic Soldier Labour support varying from electorate to electorate. However, the National Party could not take much comfort from the small swing to them.