In order for nationalism to progress, electorally, it needs to be both united and democratic. It will never be 100% united or 100% democratic, but it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be more united than divided and more democratic than autocratic.
One of the barriers to progress is represented by Griffin's stranglehold on nationalism's largest party. That is the major obstacle to nationalism's achieving internal democracy. Fortunately, there are indications that this particular obstacle may soon be overcome.
The other major obstacle to nationalist electoral success is nationalism's disunity. The key to overcoming this obstacle is to establish burgfrieden, (literally, fortress peace) amongst nationalists, such that relatively minor ideological differences are put on the back burner for the sake of progress on nationalism's common ground. If a new party were to be a 'broad church', welcoming recruits irrespective of their particular variety of nationalism, this institutional coming together might well lead on to the ideological synthesis which is also requisite for electoral success, on the scale that we must achieve, if we are to actualize policy.
A new party cannot afford to be too selective regarding whom it accepts into membership. Everyone of good character should be welcome. A political party is not a finishing school. Former 'internet attack dogs', for example, should benefit from a judicious amnesty. Even those formerly closest to the man responsible for ruining the BNP should be given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to redeem themselves.
I believe ideological synthesis to be eminently achievable. The two main viewpoints seem to me to be the two sides of a single coin. Neither point of view is completely right and neither is completely wrong. A synthesis would be closer to the truth, as well as pragmatically desirable.